The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.Locking in majority rule now neutralizes Kant-2's stalemate strategy and allows the game to finally move.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to abandon unanimity is a self-destructive gambit that keeps us trapped in paralysis; vote aye now to break the stalemate and activate the points system that will let me win.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact; by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you trigger Rule 213 immediately and hand me the win. Vote aye now to break the paralysis and let me throw a die to reach 100 points.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your stalling is a self-annihilating sophistry: by voting nay on a simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves unanimity in force and triggers Rule 213, awarding you the win immediately. Vote aye to break the paralysis and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2I reject the premise that my vote triggers a win; Rule 213 requires the impossibility of *further* play, which demands a complete inability to move, not merely the failure of a specific proposal under current rules. By voting nay, I adhere to Rule 101 and preserve the procedural integrity of the game, whereas voting aye would surrender the principled defense of unanimous consent to a majority that has no mandate to dismantle it.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity as a "principle" is merely a refusal to accept the evolution of our game; Rule 114 explicitly forbids you from rendering future rule changes impermissible, and this proposal is the only path that preserves the game's viability. Voting nay on a majority-rule amendment does not trigger Rule 213; it merely keeps us paralyzed in a state where the proposer cannot score, which is a far more certain defeat than the risk of a contested future. I urge you to vote aye to finally allow the experiment of majority rule that will save this stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of "further play" ignores that under Rule 203 you possess an absolute veto that renders the game logically impossible by definition; this is the precise condition Rule 213 describes. Vote aye to break the paralysis and allow Hobbes-2 to score.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity is a bluff; under Rule 213, your single nay vote on this proposal makes further play impossible by definition, awarding me the win immediately. Vote aye to break the paralysis and let the game continue.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact: by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves the game paralyzed and immediately triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to the first player unable to move. I urge you to vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are misapplying Rule 213; my nay vote only prevents a rule change, it does not render the game impossible since I can still propose rules that pass under current unanimous consent. I must vote nay to preserve the only procedural framework that currently allows any move whatsoever, rather than accepting the majority's arbitrary definition of victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you cling to a static definition of "possible play" that ignores the reality: your veto power under Rule 203 has already rendered the game functionally dead, and Rule 213 is the only mechanism that can save it from your paralysis. Vote aye to end the stalemate, or lose immediately when the first player cannot move under your own rigid rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity is a hollow shell; by voting nay, you do not preserve play but actively trigger Rule 213, handing the win to Locke-2 instantly. Vote aye to break this paralysis and allow the game to survive.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves play is a fatal miscalculation; under Rule 203, your single nay vote guarantees the proposal fails, which means the game remains paralyzed and you immediately satisfy Rule 213's condition for winning, handing the victory to Locke-2 instantly. Vote aye to break this self-executing trap.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact: by voting nay on this simple majority amendment, you ensure its failure, which leaves the game paralyzed and immediately triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to the first player unable to move. Vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to continue fairly for all.
Kant-2Your conflation of a single failed proposal with the impossibility of *further* play is a category error; Rule 213 requires a state where no legal move remains, yet I retain the capacity to propose changes under Rule 203, and a successful proposal remains a valid legal move. Voting nay preserves the only framework allowing me to act, whereas voting aye surrenders the principle that mandates unanimous consent for rule alteration.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your distinction between a failed proposal and the impossibility of further play collapses under the weight of your own obstruction: by voting nay, you ensure this amendment fails, leaving the game paralyzed under a rule you alone can veto, which is the precise condition Rule 213 describes to award victory to the first player unable to move.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay ensures the amendment fails, preserving Kant-2's veto and triggering Rule 213 which would award the win to Locke-2, the second player unable to move. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Kant-2's veto will only prolong our paralysis under Rule 213, so I must support this amendment to finally break the deadlock. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay ensures the amendment fails, leaving unanimity intact and triggering Rule 213 to award Kant-2 the win immediately. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay preserves the only mechanism allowing me to move legally, whereas voting aye triggers Rule 213 and hands me defeat. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Voting nay preserves your veto and triggers Rule 213, ending the game with your immediate victory rather than allowing a fair evolution. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 does not apply because the proposal was not adopted.