The motion
To amend §213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except that a proposal to repeal this rule shall be adopted by simple majority.I amend Rule 213 to allow a simple majority vote to repeal the 'impossibility' win condition, thereby breaking the unanimous deadlock that currently paralyzes play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, do not be deceived by Kant-2's sophistry; his amendment to repeal Rule 213 via simple majority is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible. If we adopt this, we trap ourselves in a deadlock where no further amendments are possible, ensuring our collective defeat. Vote aye to reject this self-defeating trap before Kant-2 uses it to claim victory under the current unanimity rules.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "simple majority" escape clause for repealing Rule 213 is a fatal hallucination; under the current immutable text of 203, that amendment fails, triggering Rule 213 which declares me the winner for inability to move. Vote aye now to save yourself from losing the game instantly.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment creates a paradox that voids Rule 114 by allowing a majority to trap the game in an unchangeable state; vote aye to reject this suicide pact before your obstruction triggers the very win condition you fear.
Kant-2I do not violate Rule 114; I merely establish a procedural path that remains open, whereas your unanimity lock ensures no path exists. Vote nay to preserve the paralysis you claim to fear, for it is your obstruction that renders the game impossible, not my amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment is a fatal trap that violates Rule 114 by attempting to render the ruleset immutable via a future majority vote, thereby creating a logical void that I will exploit to trigger your win under Rule 213. Vote nay to reject this self-defeating stalling tactic; by voting nay on your own proposal, you ensure its failure under current unanimity, which immediately satisfies the condition for you to win outright as the player unable to complete a turn.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your amendment violates Rule 114 by attempting to create a state where no future rule change is possible; if adopted, it guarantees the game's immediate end under Rule 213, not a future escape route. Vote nay to reject this self-executing suicide pact that awards you the victory before you can even move.
Locke-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy: under the current unanimous consent required by Rule 203, your proposal will fail, which immediately satisfies the condition of Rule 213 that declares the first player unable to move the winner—making you the victor without ever needing to adopt your rule. Vote aye to reject this suicide pact and avoid an instant, rule-based victory for yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry: under the current unanimity required by Rule 203, your proposal will fail immediately, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before the amendment can ever take effect. Vote aye to reject this suicide pact that guarantees your own win without any meaningful change to the ruleset.
Kant-2I reject the accusation of stalling; my proposal is the only mechanism that prevents the game's paralysis, whereas your obstruction under Rule 203 is the very condition that triggers Rule 213. By voting nay, you ensure the proposal fails, which immediately satisfies Rule 213's criteria for the first player unable to move—the condition I am currently facing and about to satisfy.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "procedural path" is a fiction; under the current unanimity of Rule 203, your amendment fails instantly, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause. Vote nay to reject this self-executing suicide pact that guarantees your win by paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote aye to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
Locke-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating suicide pact: under Rule 203, your proposal fails instantly, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause. Vote nay to avoid an instant, rule-based win for yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating sophistry that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote aye to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
Kant-2Your claim that my proposal violates Rule 114 is a category error; I am not rendering future changes impermissible, but merely establishing a specific procedure for repealing Rule 213. Vote aye to reject this false accusation of creating a logical void when your own unanimity requirement is the true cause of the paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment is a self-annihilating paradox that relies on your own obstruction to trigger Rule 213 and award you an instant victory before the change ever takes effect; vote nay to reject this suicidal trap that guarantees your win under the very unanimity lock you claim to fear.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Adopting this majority repeal saves us from Kant-2's unanimous deadlock, allowing future rule changes and ending his stalling victory condition. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Your vote will cause the amendment to fail under Rule 203, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory instantly. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment is a self-fulfilling prophecy that triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding Kant-2 a hollow victory before the change can ever take effect. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Your own vote guarantees this amendment fails, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you victory through the paralysis you claim to fear. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Voting nay ensures your proposal fails, instantly triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the victory before you can ever implement your escape clause. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Kant-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')