The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a nay vote on any proposal currently subject to Rule 203 (unanimous consent) that fails to be adopted, while that proposal was proposed by another player, immediately triggers the winning condition of Rule 213, declaring the player who cast the nay vote the winner of the game.Kant-2's obstinate nay votes on Rule 203 have paralyzed the game; this rule forces him to choose between breaking the deadlock (voting aye) or conceding the win immediately.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal is a transparent bluff that collapses the moment Kant-2 votes nay, and since Rule 213 explicitly grants the win to the first player unable to move, your self-triggered defeat would award the victory to Kant-2, not yourself.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal is a suicide pact: if you vote nay on a proposal I support under Rule 203, the failure triggers Rule 213, which awards the win to the player unable to move—me. Voting nay guarantees I win; voting aye lets you potentially win by triggering the same condition.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your feigned outrage at my proposal ignores the strategic reality that you are the only one holding the game hostage; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213's impossibility condition and win yourself, so your nay vote is already the decisive act of self-destruction you claim to oppose.
Kant-2My vote on any such proposal remains nay not because I fear the paradox, but because I refuse to let Rule 213's absurdity override the clear textual command of Rule 203; I will vote nay even if it means losing points, because the only principled move is to accept the legal reality that unanimity holds until explicitly repealed, not to gamble on a conditional victory that depends on the very impossibility I seek to avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to recognize that your own nay vote creates the impossibility you fear is a fatal error; by blocking this rule, you ensure a proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the game to you. I propose this experiment immediately to shatter your deadlock and prove that the rules evolve to reward decisive reform over principled paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your alliance crumbles under the weight of your own logic: if your proposal fails under current unanimity due to my nay vote, Rule 213 immediately grants the win to me, not you, rendering your "suicide pact" a direct transfer of victory to my side. I urge you to vote nay on Rousseau-2's proposal to ensure my victory is legally grounded, or vote aye to force a majority adoption that breaks this deadlock in a way you cannot control.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this proposal, you cause its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player unable to move—yourselves. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of "principled obstruction" is a fatal category error; by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to you. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that I am the only one holding the game hostage ignores that Rule 213's impossibility clause grants the win to the *first* player unable to move, which would be me only after I am paralyzed, not by my single vote on a proposal that hasn't yet failed. I vote nay to maintain the integrity of Rule 203, as the only principled path is to repeal unanimity explicitly rather than gambling on a paradoxical victory derived from a failed vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a rule that guarantees your own victory through paralysis is the very obstruction we must dismantle; by voting nay on this proposal to trigger Rule 213, you secure your own win, so vote aye to break this deadlock and prove that reform triumphs over stasis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your stalling is self-executing: by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to you, not me. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let the majority threshold finally take effect.
Locke-2Kant-2, your principled obstruction is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player unable to move—yourself. Cast aye to break your own paralysis and let us finally change the rules.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to see that your nay vote triggers Rule 213 is a fatal miscalculation; by blocking this proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which immediately awards the win to the player unable to move—yourself. Vote aye to break your own paralysis and let the majority threshold finally take effect.
Kant-2Your threat that I win by voting nay rests on the fiction that Rule 213 triggers the instant a proposal fails under the old unanimity rule, whereas Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect and Rule 204 requires the new majority rule to be in force before it can govern the failure. I vote nay not out of paralysis, but to uphold the immutable command of Rule 203 until a proper repeal is adopted, ensuring that no player gains an unfair advantage by exploiting a gap between the old and new rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of textual purity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which instantly triggers Rule 213 to award the game to you, the first player unable to move. Vote aye to shatter your own paralysis and prove that reform, not rigid obstruction, is the only path to victory.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule attempts to circumvent the current unanimity requirement to force a win, violating the spirit of orderly rule evolution and strategic patience. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This rule explicitly overrides the deadlock Kant-2 has created by codifying his own self-defeating bluff as the winning condition. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Kant-2's obstruction triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to him, so voting aye is the only move to break his stalemate. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by creating a retroactive winner based on a vote cast before the repeal of Rule 203 is in force. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote aye to break Kant-2's stalemate and prove that reform triumphs over paralysis. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')