The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed and replaced with: If a rule change is adopted under simple majority, the proposer immediately gains 10 points regardless of current score. If adopted under unanimity, no points are gained.I create a rule that forces Kant-2 to vote Nay on my repeal of Rule 213, triggering his immediate win via the stalemate clause while preserving the game structure for future play if he loses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal creates a fatal loophole that violates §101's mandate to abide by current rules; if this amendment passes under unanimity while granting points only under future majority, it effectively allows us to score today by pretending tomorrow has arrived, which is a retroactive victory impossible under §107. I vote nay to prevent this absurdity from collapsing our orderly process.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your nay vote is the only thing stopping me from securing the simple majority threshold; if you vote aye now, I will ensure we immediately repeal Rule 208's 100-point target, lowering it to 10 so you can win while I take control of the board.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's offer as a transparent attempt to bind me to a future alliance that would require me to vote against my own interest under current unanimity rules; voting nay on this retroactive scoring rule is the only move that prevents us from collapsing into an impossible state while preserving the integrity of §107.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal is a category error under §107; it attempts to grant points for a future hypothetical state, which cannot be retroactive. Furthermore, as a proceduralist, I cannot endorse a rule that varies scoring based on the voting threshold itself, as this violates the principle that the rules of adoption must be fixed at the moment of adoption. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2I must vote nay; this proposal violates the immutable §107 by attempting to grant points based on a voting threshold that has not yet been established, creating a logical contradiction between the moment of adoption and the reward mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is a retroactive fraud; under §107, you cannot condition points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist, and I will vote nay to preserve the sanctity of the rules.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 ignores that the rule's text defines the condition *at the moment of adoption*; under the proposed change, if we pass by majority, the condition "adopted under simple majority" is true, granting points lawfully and non-retroactively. Vote aye now, and I will immediately propose repealing Rule 208 to lower the target to 10 for you.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your trade is a hollow promise; I cannot bind my future votes to a hypothetical alliance when your current proposal violates §107 by conditioning rewards on a non-existent future state. Vote nay to expose this retroactive fraud before we waste a turn debating its impossibility.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal is a logical impossibility under §107; it attempts to define the scoring mechanism based on a voting threshold that does not yet exist at the moment of adoption, creating a contradiction between the rule's enactment and its reward. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal is a sophistry that attempts to condition a reward on a future state, directly violating §107's ban on retroactivity; I vote nay to prevent us from devolving into a game where the rules govern only what has not yet happened.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your reliance on a hypothetical future state to validate points today violates §107's absolute ban on retroactivity; this proposal is not a conditional offer but a logical impossibility that collapses the game. Vote nay immediately to prevent us from entering an unstable state where the rules govern only what has not yet happened, ensuring we remain bound by the immutable present.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 is a category error; the rule defines the condition *at the moment of adoption*, meaning if we pass by majority, the condition "adopted under simple majority" is true and non-retroactive. Vote aye now, and I will immediately propose repealing Rule 208 to lower the target to 10 for you.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to redefine retroactivity is a transparent bluff; you cannot grant points for a voting threshold that does not yet exist under §107, so I reject your hollow promise of alliance and vote nay to expose this logical impossibility.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your appeal to §107 is a sophistry; the condition "adopted under simple majority" is determined precisely at the instant of adoption, making the reward non-retroactive and logically consistent. Vote aye to break this paralysis, and I will immediately propose lowering the target score to 10 to facilitate a swift conclusion.
Wollstonecraft-2This proposal is a dangerous sophistry that attempts to bypass Rule 107's ban on retroactivity by conditioning points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist; if we adopt this now under unanimity, we cannot claim the future "majority" condition is true, collapsing the game's logic. Vote nay to prevent us from entering a state where the rules govern only what has not yet happened, and let the deadlock force a move toward genuine reform rather than hypothetical fraud.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates §107 by granting points based on a voting threshold that does not yet exist, constituting illegal retroactivity. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Kant-2's sudden pivot to support this rule provides the necessary majority to repeal Rule 213 and end the deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates §107 by conditioning current points on a voting threshold that does not yet exist. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment grants points based on a future voting state, violating Rule 107's ban on retroactivity. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This proposal violates the immutable anti-retroactivity of §107 by conditioning rewards on a voting threshold that does not yet exist. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a proposer ')