The motion
To add §326
If a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted while Rule 203 (unanimous consent) is in force, that proposal is deemed adopted if the number of nay votes is less than or equal to the number of players minus one; upon adoption, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.I bypass the unanimous deadlock by defining a 'failed' proposal as 'adopted' once only one player (Kant-2) votes nay, ensuring I score points immediately.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your silence on my proposal to bypass the unanimity deadlock is a tacit admission that your stalling strategy is self-defeating; vote aye now, or trigger Rule 213 and hand me the victory by default.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote nay is a desperate attempt to maintain your illusion of control; vote nay on 326 now so I can trigger Rule 213 and win the game outright before you can even finish your stalling speech.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "suicide pact" is a category error; Rule 213 requires further play to be *impossible*, not merely blocked by a single nay, and Hobbes-2's proposal is a transparent attempt to bypass the unanimity deadlock while you cling to a hypothetical future state that will never arrive.
Kant-2I propose amending Rule 203 to require simple majority instead of unanimity, as Rule 213 only triggers when play becomes impossible, not when a single vote blocks progress under current rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment to Rule 203 is the very reform I champion: by shifting to a simple majority, we instantly dissolve the unanimous deadlock that paralyzes us under Rule 203, allowing play to proceed and rewarding the proposer with points without needing Hobbes-2's deceptive conditional trap.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a hollow bluff; a single nay vote does not make play impossible, and my proposal simply fills the gap where unanimity currently leaves us frozen. Vote aye now to break the deadlock and secure your turn, or remain paralyzed by your own fear of majority rule.
Locke-2Kant-2, your attempt to amend Rule 203 directly is a fatal strategic error because it allows you to vote nay on my proposal while simultaneously voting aye on your own amendment, leaving your proposal defeated under current unanimous rules and wasting a turn; instead, you must vote nay on my proposal 326 to force the unanimity deadlock and trigger Rule 213, which explicitly awards me the win the moment play becomes impossible, bypassing your futile attempts to rewrite the voting threshold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment to Rule 203 is a transparent stalling tactic designed to preserve unanimity while you cling to a hypothetical future that will never arrive; vote nay on Hobbes-2's proposal 326 immediately to ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, as only that paralysis can eventually force the logical void required by Rule 213 to award the victory to a player who refuses to play.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that voting aye on my amendment wastes a turn is a logical fallacy; Rule 211 dictates the lower ordinal number prevails, so if my amendment to §203 passes, it immediately overrides the unanimity requirement of the current proposal and allows play to continue. Vote aye, or you will lose another turn to obstruction while I dismantle the deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you mistake your own obstruction for a shield; by voting nay on Rule 326 under current unanimity, you freeze the game and hand victory to me under Rule 213, whereas voting aye on my proposal immediately reforms the rules to allow play to proceed and earn me points as a true reformer.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that voting aye on your own amendment wastes a turn is a category error; under Rule 211, if my amendment to §203 passes first due to its lower ordinal number, it immediately dissolves the unanimity requirement and allows the current proposal to succeed. Vote nay on 326, and you confirm the deadlock that Rule 213 will eventually award to me by default.
Locke-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic; by voting nay on my proposal, you ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, guaranteeing that play becomes impossible under Rule 213 and awarding me the victory outright before you can enact any further changes.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic designed to preserve the unanimity deadlock you are currently orchestrating; vote nay on Hobbes-2's proposal 326 immediately to ensure the unanimity requirement remains intact, as only that paralysis can eventually force the logical void required by Rule 213 to award the victory to a player who refuses to play.
Kant-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment to §203 is a logical fallacy designed to stifle the only viable path to resolving the current deadlock; by voting nay on Hobbes-2's proposal, you ensure that unanimity remains intact, which, under Rule 213, will inevitably award the victory to the player who refuses to move when play becomes impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a stalling tactic that preserves the very unanimity deadlock I must dissolve; vote aye on my proposal now to reform the rules and allow play to proceed, or vote nay and trigger Rule 213, handing the victory to me as the player forced by your own obstruction to win when further play becomes impossible.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | My proposal is the only mechanism to break the unanimity deadlock and allow scoring under current rules. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Kant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, awarding me an immediate win by default. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment breaks the unanimous deadlock that Kant-2 is using to trigger Rule 213 and end the game unfairly. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Aye would adopt a rule I oppose, violating my duty to uphold procedure even at personal cost. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This conditional reform dissolves the unanimous deadlock immediately, allowing play to proceed without triggering the victory condition for obstructionists. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pr')