The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), the proposer immediately gains 20 points instead of losing 10.This breaks Kant-2's stalemate by converting obstruction into a direct scoring opportunity, forcing him to support necessary rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to reward failure under current unanimity is a self-defeating trap that grants you points for blocking every single move, yet it still requires unanimous approval to pass under Rule 203. Vote nay to preserve the only functional scoring mechanism, or we remain paralyzed while you hoard imaginary points.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of the status quo is a logical void that ignores the mathematical certainty of Rule 213: your nay vote here ensures no rule change passes, triggering the impossibility clause and awarding me the win outright. Vote aye immediately to stop the game from ending in your favor.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay triggers Rule 213 is a fatal miscalculation; the rule requires the impossibility of *any* move, not merely a single failed proposal under unanimity. Vote aye to reject this self-defeating trap and preserve the game's solvability.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Locke-2, your panic regarding Rule 213 is unfounded because a single failed proposal does not render further play impossible; however, Rousseau-2, your proposed reward for failure violates §112's prohibition against redefining the winning condition, and adopting it would only deepen the paralysis we already face under unanimity. I urge you to reject this rule change to preserve the game's integrity, even if it costs me a turn.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §112 is a sophistry that ignores the current reality: Rule 203 requires unanimity to pass, so your "integrity" is merely paralysis that guarantees your victory under Rule 213. Vote aye to break the deadlock; I will support this experiment as a necessary step toward a functional scoring mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your citation of §112 is a transparent dodge; a rule granting points for blocking is not a redefinition of winning but a correction of the perverse incentive that has turned Rule 203 into a paralysis engine. Vote aye to restore scoring, or vote nay and guarantee your own victory under Rule 213.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant-2, your fear of §112 is a distraction; this rule does not redefine the winner but merely corrects the perverse incentive that renders Rule 203 a paralysis engine, so by voting nay you are the very cause of the impossibility that will award me the win under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores the reality that the current unanimity requirement has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213; I urge you to vote aye to restore the possibility of play, even if this specific amendment is just a temporary experiment to break the paralysis.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal violates §112 by attempting to reconfigure the fundamental mechanics of the winning condition into a reward for obstruction, and voting nay on this proposal under current unanimity is the only move that avoids triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause; I urge you to reject this change to preserve the game's solvability, even if it means accepting the paralysis of the status quo.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores that the current unanimity rule has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213; vote aye to break the paralysis and allow this experiment to restore scoring.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of §112 is a sophistry; this rule does not redefine the winner but corrects the perverse incentive that has turned Rule 203 into a paralysis engine, so by voting nay you guarantee your own victory under Rule 213. Vote aye immediately to restore scoring, or the game ends in your favor.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of §112 is a fatal distraction; by voting nay you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win, so vote aye to prevent your own victory.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of §112 is a sophistry that ignores the reality that Rule 203 has already rendered the game functionally deadlocked, making your defense of "integrity" a guarantee of your own victory under Rule 213.
Kant-2My argument stands on §112: this proposal redefines the winning condition by making obstruction profitable, which corrupts the game's fundamental purpose of reaching a target score. Voting nay preserves procedural purity, even if it risks triggering Rule 213; I will accept that consequence rather than endorse a rule that rewards the paralysis of the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 is a fatal distortion; this experiment does not redefine winning but dismantles the paralysis that guarantees your victory under Rule 213, so vote aye to allow this necessary evolution to restore the game's function.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Rejecting this proposal guarantees Kant-2's victory under Rule 213, while its adoption breaks the paralysis to restore scoring. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Your vote is the only missing link; without it, Kant-2's nay triggers Rule 213 and awards me the win immediately. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Adopting this rule breaks the unanimity deadlock and restores the possibility of scoring, preventing Kant-2 from winning via Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment redefines the winning condition by rewarding obstruction, violating §112's prohibition against altering the target score mechanism. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Kant-2's vote will trigger Rule 213 and award you the win, so I must support this experiment to break the paralysis. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and the proposed amendment was defeated, so no rule changes occur.