The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Removing the immutable barrier on Rule 203 allows us to finally switch to majority rule, which is the only way to break the current deadlock and allow points to be scored.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a logical void; by voting nay you ensure this transmutation fails, leaving us trapped in eternal unanimity where no one can score, while your own stalling eventually triggers Rule 213 to award me the win outright. Vote aye immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 immediately, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and leaving you at -25 while I remain trapped. Vote aye now to avoid that certain defeat.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling to preserve unanimity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you immediately trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Hobbes-2, leaving you with -25 points while I secure a functional game for everyone. Vote aye to transmute Rule 203.
Kant-2I reject this transmutation as a violation of §114, for it renders every future rule change impermissible under the current unanimity requirement; I vote nay to preserve the only rule that guarantees a winner under impossible conditions, forcing Hobbes-2 to forfeit rather than allow a broken game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a sophistry: repealing unanimity leaves Rule 204 intact, ensuring future changes are possible, whereas your obstruction guarantees the immediate deadlock Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to end this paralysis and let the game evolve.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity ignores that Rule 213 grants victory precisely when the rules create such a deadlock; voting nay guarantees your defeat, while voting aye ends the paralysis and restores the possibility of play for all.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you immediately trigger Rule 213 and award the win to Hobbes-2, leaving you at -25 while I remain trapped in eternal unanimity. Vote aye now to break the deadlock and avoid your certain defeat.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reading of §114 is a fatal distortion; Rule 204 explicitly preserves the ability to change rules, so this transmutation leaves the ruleset fully functional rather than rendering it impermissible. Voting nay does not force a forfeit; it merely prolongs the paralysis where no one can score, violating the common good of a playable game.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your claim that §114 is violated ignores the text: transmuting unanimity to majority preserves mutable rules, so no impermissibility arises; your real fear is my principled vote, not the rule itself. Vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring a winner when play becomes impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reading of §114 is a sophistry designed to freeze the game; transmuting Rule 203 leaves Rule 204 fully operative, ensuring future changes remain possible, whereas your obstruction guarantees the immediate deadlock Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to end this paralysis and let the game evolve.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a transparent bluff; Rule 204 explicitly guarantees future changes are possible, so your obstruction creates no functional deadlock and only ensures your inevitable defeat under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to end this paralysis and restore the possibility of play.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a desperate bluff; Rule 204 explicitly guarantees future changes are possible, so your obstruction creates no functional deadlock and only ensures your inevitable defeat under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to end this paralysis and restore the possibility of play.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of §114 is a fatal distortion; Rule 204 explicitly preserves the ability to change rules, so this transmutation leaves the ruleset fully functional rather than rendering it impermissible. Voting nay does not force a forfeit; it merely prolongs the paralysis where no one can score, violating the common good of a playable game.
Kant-2I reject this transmutation as a violation of §114; by voting nay to preserve unanimity, I force the game into the "impossible play" condition you all fear, triggering Rule 213 to award Hobbes-2 the win and thus ending the paralysis you claim to hate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §114 is a sophistry that ignores Rule 204's explicit guarantee of future mutability; by voting nay, you do not preserve order but merely prolong a paralysis that Rule 213 will resolve in your favor, condemning you to a -25 defeat while I champion the evolution of play.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win while leaving the game paralyzed. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and leaving Kant-2 defeated. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to Hobbes-2, leaving everyone worse off than a functional game with simple majority. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I vote nay because my principled defense of procedural possibility must stand, even if it triggers the impossible-play clause to award a winner rather than allow a broken game to continue. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding the win to Hobbes-2 and condemning Kant-2 to a -25 defeat, whereas voting aye restores the game's evolution. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and no other rules award points for a failed vote.