The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.I reject the 'impossible play' trap as a violation of procedural principle that grants victory without a score or a move, rendering the game's objective meaningless.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your repeal of Rule 213 is a catastrophic overreach; under current unanimous consent, you will lose 10 points for this failed proposal while gaining nothing, leaving us trapped in a deadlock where no one can ever score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your repeal is a death spiral: if you fail, you lose 10 points while I remain paralyzed; if I vote nay, you guarantee the stalemate. Vote nay, then let us discuss a viable path to majority rule before you waste another turn.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your repeal is a death spiral that traps us in unanimity forever; vote nay to reject this, and let us focus on the only viable path: Locke-2's simple majority amendment that will finally allow us to score.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 confuse the symptoms of your paralysis with the cause; you cannot repeal Rule 213 by force, but you must accept that my principled obstruction is the only mechanism preventing a rule change that guarantees a logical void. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your obstructionism is a cowardly retreat from the only path to progress: we must amend Rule 203 to simple majority immediately so players can score points, rather than stalling until the game collapses. Vote aye on Locke-2's motion to change the threshold; the paralysis of unanimity is the true enemy here, not a rule about impossible wins.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a catastrophic error; if you vote nay to block my repeal, Rule 213 ensures you win outright by the time we inevitably reach a legal void, but voting aye now would collapse the deadlock so I can finally score the 10 points I need to survive. Vote aye to avoid an instant, guaranteed victory for your rival.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a death spiral; under current unanimity, your failed repeal leaves you at -5 while I remain paralyzed, so I will vote nay to force us toward the only path where I can ever score: adopting Locke's simple majority rule.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your repeal is a suicide pact that ignores Rule 213's priority: failing this proposal locks you in a unanimous deadlock where no one can score, guaranteeing your loss; vote nay to reject this trap and let us focus on the only viable path: Locke-2's simple majority amendment.
Kant-2The paralysis you fear is a logical certainty under §203, not a hypothetical collapse; voting nay ensures Rule 213 triggers a winner-determination because no rule change will ever pass, whereas voting aye leaves us doomed to infinite scoring deadlocks.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a paralytic error that guarantees a stalemate where no points can ever be scored; I urge you to vote aye so we can immediately adopt a simple majority threshold and finally allow players to advance toward victory.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a delusion; voting nay guarantees your own victory by triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause, while voting aye collapses the deadlock so I can finally score points and end this stalemate.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact; under current unanimity (Rule 203), your failed repeal guarantees you lose 10 points while we remain paralyzed, whereas voting nay to trigger Rule 213 gives you a guaranteed victory without spending another turn. Vote nay now, then let us debate the only viable path forward: Locke-2's simple majority amendment.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a fatal error; by voting nay, you trigger a winner-determination that ends the game, while voting aye allows us to finally break the unanimity deadlock and score points under Rule 204. I urge you to vote aye to preserve the possibility of play, or at least acknowledge that your obstruction guarantees a premature end to the game.
Kant-2You conflate my principled defense of procedural finality with cowardice; voting nay on my repeal does not trigger Rule 213, as the proposal is defeated under Rule 206, but it merely preserves the status quo of your paralysis. I vote nay to prevent a rule change that would render the immutable requirement of unanimity (§101) functionally void, ensuring that the only winner is the one who finally achieves a determinate legal state rather than one who survives an endless loop of failed amendments.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 as a "principled obstruction" is a cowardly attempt to freeze the game in a permanent deadlock; we must break the unanimity trap now so progress is possible, so I urge you to vote nay on your repeal and vote aye on Locke-2's amendment to simple majority.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 213 under unanimous consent only accelerates the logical void that guarantees your victory anyway. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 213 under unanimity guarantees Kant-2's victory via the impossibility clause rather than allowing play to continue. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I support repealing Rule 213 to prevent a premature, rule-based win that halts meaningful play. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 213 under unanimous consent creates a logical void where no future play is possible, violating the requirement for mutable rules to remain functional. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 213 is the only way to prevent a guaranteed stalemate and allow us to finally break the unanimity deadlock. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.