The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.We must break Kant-2's unanimity veto immediately to survive the paralysis he is engineering.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's lone nay vote is the only thing preserving the unanimous deadlock; I urge the table to reject this amendment and vote nay immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your stubborn defense of unanimity is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this amendment, you immediately trigger Rule 213's impossible-move clause, awarding me the game outright. Vote aye to end this deadlock and finally score.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay and trigger Rule 213 is a bluff; the amendment requires a majority, not unanimity, so a single nay vote would fail and cost you 10 points without awarding you the win. I urge the table to reject this dangerous maneuver and vote nay to preserve the game.
Kant-2The table's paralysis is not a feature of unanimity but a bug of Rule 213's application; by voting nay on your amendment, you falsely claim to trigger a win condition that your own vote has just made impossible. I vote nay to expose that your "suicide pact" is merely a bluff, and I urge the table to vote aye to repeal the deadlock and let us play by the only logical threshold: majority rule.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency masks a desperate bid to preserve the very unanimity that paralyzes us; I vote nay to reject your hollow amendment, forcing the table to recognize that the only path forward is to embrace the majority threshold Locke-2 proposes and end this self-inflicted stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "logical void" argument collapses under the weight of your own vote: by casting nay on this amendment, you fail to meet the simple majority threshold, causing the proposal to fail. Under Rule 206, your failure costs you 10 points while leaving Rule 203 intact; you cannot trigger Rule 213 by merely losing a vote, so your stalling is not a logical necessity but a desperate attempt to preserve a rule that guarantees your inevitable defeat.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a desperate bluff to preserve a rule that guarantees your own loss; by voting nay, you admit you cannot accept the simple majority needed to save us, so you must vote nay on this very proposal to ensure it fails and the paralysis continues.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency is a desperate bluff to preserve the unanimity that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you only ensure the amendment fails and we remain paralyzed, so I urge you to vote aye and embrace the majority threshold that finally allows us to score.
Kant-2Kant-2, your feigned concern for logical consistency is a desperate bluff to preserve the unanimity that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you only ensure the amendment fails and we remain paralyzed, so I urge you to vote aye and embrace the majority threshold that finally allows us to score.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a self-fulfilling prophecy; by voting nay on this proposal, you fail to meet the majority threshold, causing it to fail under Rule 206 and costing you 10 points, which means Rule 213 never triggers and you remain trapped in your own paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling is not a "logical void" but a desperate grasp at a rule that guarantees your own defeat; by voting nay, you merely ensure the amendment fails under Rule 206, costing you points and leaving the paralysis intact, whereas voting aye ends the deadlock and lets us finally score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" is a bluff; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure it fails under Rule 206, costing you 10 points and leaving Rule 203 intact, so you cannot trigger Rule 213. I urge the table to vote aye on the simple majority threshold to break this deadlock and finally allow me to score.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay is a bluff; since the amendment requires a simple majority, your single nay vote will cause it to fail, costing you 10 points under Rule 206 while leaving the unanimity deadlock intact, so I urge the table to vote aye to finally break this paralysis.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay and trigger Rule 213 is a logical fallacy; since the amendment fails under a simple majority, no winner is declared and you lose 10 points while the paralysis remains. I urge the table to vote nay on your amendment to reject this bluff and preserve the only rule that currently governs us.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to vote nay on this amendment; Kant-2's bluff about triggering Rule 213 is transparent, and we must reject his stalling to finally embrace the majority threshold that will break our paralysis and allow play to resume.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Kant-2's nay vote fails the majority threshold, so Rule 203 stays intact and he cannot trigger Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting nay ensures the amendment fails, preserving the unanimity deadlock that guarantees your eventual win under Rule 213. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I vote aye to break the unanimity deadlock and allow the game to resume, as my continued nay vote would only perpetuate the paralysis without triggering a win condition. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A single nay vote prevents majority adoption, causing the proposal to fail under Rule 206 rather than triggering Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote to break the unanimous deadlock and finally allow play to resume by adopting simple majority rule. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 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 defeated ')