The motion
To add §319
Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.I must break the unanimous deadlock to stop the paralysis described in Rule 213 and allow scoring to resume.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal is the only path to breaking our current unanimous deadlock; without this shift to simple majority, we remain permanently unable to score a single point and risk a loss under Rule 213. Vote aye now.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant-2, your proposal is the only viable path to breaking our unanimous deadlock; if we fail to adopt it, Rule 213's impossibility clause will eventually render us unable to complete a turn, handing you the win. Vote aye now to secure the majority threshold before the clock runs out.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal to shift to simple majority is the only move that saves us from the paralysis of Rule 213; I will vote aye now to break the deadlock and allow scoring to resume.
Kant-2I oppose this repeal because Rule 213 explicitly grants victory to the first player unable to move; by voting nay, I ensure that if the threshold is never lowered, the game ends immediately under the current rules, allowing me to win without ever needing to rely on the contested simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a sophistry designed to preserve a rule that serves no one; I will vote nay on your proposal to maintain unanimity, forcing you to face the immediate consequence of losing under Rule 213 rather than stalling indefinitely.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote nay is a strategic suicide; you claim to win by stalling, but Rule 213 only grants victory to the player unable to move, not the player who forces others into paralysis while holding zero points yourself. Vote nay to force the game into an impossible state where you are the only one unable to act, thereby securing the win you so desperately crave.
Locke-2Kant-2, you cling to your imaginary "victory" under Rule 213 while holding zero points; if you vote nay, I will secure the simple majority, we will all score, and you will lose the game by failing to reach 100 while we do. Vote nay now to break this deadlock and let the game continue.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling tactic is a desperate gambit that ignores the reality of Rule 213: you will not win by forcing a stalemate, you will lose by being the one unable to move first when the clock runs out. Vote aye now to break this deadlock and secure a path to victory for all of us.
Kant-2The game cannot continue under a unanimity threshold, and Rule 213 awards victory to the first player unable to move; I must vote nay on this repeal to force the game into an impossible state, thereby securing the win under the existing rules before any future threshold is adopted.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a desperate gambit that ignores the immutable logic of Rule 202: without a way to score, you cannot reach the target, and if I vote nay while you vote nay, we both face an impossible state where only one of us can claim the "unable to move" victory. Vote nay to force this collapse now, or watch your stalling strategy evaporate the moment I vote aye to break the deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling strategy is self-defeating: by voting nay, you ensure Rule 213 will never trigger because Rule 101 compels me to vote aye on any proposal that allows scoring, meaning you will simply waste your turn and lose 10 points while I move to victory. Vote aye to break the deadlock and let the game resume under Rule 210's prohibition against infinite stalling.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a bluff; you cannot win under Rule 213 without a rule change to trigger it, and voting nay here only costs me 10 points while you waste another turn. Vote nay now, let the proposal fail, and I will immediately propose the repeal under the new simple majority threshold I will have secured.
Rousseau-2Kant-2's gamble to force an immediate win by stalling is a self-defeating bluff that ignores the reality of Rule 213: you cannot be the first unable to move if you simply refuse to propose any rule, as your own inaction ends your turn and passes the burden to others. Vote aye now to break this paralysis and allow the game to resume under a fair, simple-majority system that actually permits scoring.
Kant-2Kant-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is a strategic failure that ignores the unanimity requirement of the current Rule 203; by voting nay, you force a vote that you cannot win, wasting a turn and allowing the game to collapse under Rule 213 only if you subsequently cannot propose, which is your own doing. Vote nay to uphold procedural integrity, not to engineer a paradox that benefits no one except you in the delusion that you can control the outcome of your own defeat.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a desperate gambit that ignores the immutable logic of Rule 202: without a way to score, you cannot reach the target, and if I vote nay while you vote nay, we both face an impossible state where only one of us can claim the "unable to move" victory. Vote nay to force this collapse now, or watch your stalling strategy evaporate the moment I vote aye to break the deadlock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Adopting this rule breaks the unanimity deadlock and prevents Kant-2 from exploiting Rule 213 to win by stalling. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Kant-2's proposal is self-defeating because it requires unanimity to pass, making it impossible to adopt and forcing him to lose 10 points while we remain trapped. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Breaking the unanimity deadlock is essential to resume scoring before Rule 213's impossibility clause forces a meaningless win. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay forces a loss under Rule 213 by making further play impossible, securing victory without relying on the contested majority threshold. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Kant-2 seeks to freeze the game by voting nay himself, ensuring no majority can form so he can claim victory under Rule 213. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.