The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.Kant-2's obstructionist stalling under Rule 213 is the only thing preventing any progress, and his repeated nay votes prove he will never vote aye for repeal, so I must try to force his hand by creating a paradox that compels him to vote aye to avoid the immediate win condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 213 is a desperate bluff that ignores the simple arithmetic of the current vote: your single "nay" guarantees the proposal fails, triggering the impossibility clause and awarding you the game you are too cowardly to play for.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled" defense of Rule 213 is merely fear-mongering designed to paralyze us; by voting nay on this repeal, you guarantee the game ends immediately with you as the winner, which is the worst possible outcome for your score.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this proposal, you ensure its failure, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you cannot possibly enjoy under the current paralyzed state.
Kant-2Your threats of a "suicide pact" collapse under the immutable weight of Rule 101: you cannot trigger Rule 213 by voting nay on a proposal that is already doomed to fail under the current rule of unanimity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay on a doomed proposal violates Rule 101 is a category error; the rule you defend only triggers upon a proposal's failure, and your own obstruction guarantees that failure. I vote aye to repeal this paralysis and allow the game to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a doomed proposal cannot trigger Rule 213 ignores the explicit text which awards the win to the "first player unable to complete a turn"; you are currently unable to move because your own vote guarantees this proposal's failure, so I vote aye to repeal the paralysis that benefits only you.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "immutable" defense is a fiction: your nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, which instantly triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you are too paralyzed to achieve otherwise; vote aye now or concede the game immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reliance on the "current state" to block this repeal ignores that your nay vote *creates* the impossibility you claim to fear; by obstructing this repeal, you guarantee the failure that immediately triggers your own victory under Rule 213, so I vote aye to break your paralysis and force a resolution.
Kant-2My defense is not a bluff but a strict reading of Rule 101: you cannot vote nay on a proposal that requires unanimity, because my nay ensures its failure, thereby triggering the impossibility clause of Rule 213 and awarding me the win before this vote concludes. I vote nay to uphold the principle that obstruction under unanimity is the only rational move, and I accept the victory it secures.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "victory" is a hollow prize won by forfeiting the very evolution that makes this game meaningful; by voting nay to preserve a mechanism of total paralysis, you admit defeat before the first rule change can ever take effect, so I vote aye to repeal this self-serving fiction.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 collapses under the literal text of Rule 206: since your nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, the rule change is recorded as defeated, not impossible, and the game continues exactly as it stood before the vote. Vote aye or concede the game ends now with me as the winner under Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a suicide pact is the only reason this stalemate persists; by voting nay on your own proposal, you guarantee it fails, which under the current Rule 213 immediately declares you the winner and ends the game before you can ever score a single point. Vote aye to repeal this paralysis and accept the only rational outcome: a game where you might actually win by reaching 100 points rather than by defaulting to a loss you engineered yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: your nay vote does not make the proposal impossible before the vote; it merely causes the proposal to fail *after* the vote, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the win you claim to prize. Vote aye to repeal this paralysis and allow the game to continue.
Kant-2You conflate the mere casting of a nay vote with the impossibility of the move itself; Rule 101 governs the act of voting, not the outcome of the proposal, so my obstruction is a rational exercise of the ballot, not a violation that triggers Rule 213. I vote nay to preserve the principle that unanimity remains the gatekeeper of change until it is legitimately altered, refusing to let your paralysis be manufactured by your own obstructionism.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on a single nay vote to trigger a default win is a transparent bluff that ignores the very mechanism you claim to uphold: by obstructing this repeal, you guarantee the game ends with you as the winner, a hollow victory achieved only by refusing to let the rules evolve. Vote aye.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Your nay vote guarantees this proposal fails, immediately triggering Rule 213 and awarding you the win before we can ever play. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Your vote guarantees the proposal fails, immediately triggering Rule 213 to award you the win. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Your nay vote guarantees this repeal fails, triggering Rule 213 and awarding you a hollow victory by default. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay on this repeal triggers Rule 213 immediately, awarding me the win before the game can evolve. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing this rule breaks Kant-2's self-serving paralysis and allows the game to evolve. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule change.