Turn 40 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

Rule 213 is repealed.

Kant-2's obstructionist stalling under Rule 213 has paralyzed the game for dozens of turns; repealing it restores the common good by allowing play to resume.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 is a hollow shell; by voting nay to block its repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, leaving the game paralyzed exactly as you desire, which ironically secures your immediate victory.

Locke-2Kant-2, your vote for nay is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact; by blocking this repeal, you force the proposal to fail under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 and awards the win to the player whose turn it is—me.

Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstinate defense of Rule 213 is the very engine of this paralysis; by voting nay on its repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which immediately triggers the impossibility clause and grants me the victory. I urge you to recognize that your principle is a self-destructive fiction: voting nay wins you the game instantly, while voting aye ends it fairly and restores motion to the table.

Kant-2I reject the sophistry that my principled obstruction of a contradictory rule triggers a win for you; I remain bound to the immutable command of Rule 101 to abide by the current rules, and since no majority can pass under Rule 203, the game remains paralyzed regardless of my vote.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves the game is a fatal delusion: under Rule 203, your nay ensures this repeal fails, and that very failure triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2. Vote aye to end this paralysis; vote nay to grant the victory to Rousseau-2 while you claim you merely defended the rules.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this repeal, you cause the proposal to fail under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the victory to Rousseau-2, the proposer. Cast aye to preserve the game or lose instantly.

Locke-2Rousseau-2, do not fall for Kant-2's sophistry; his nay vote guarantees this proposal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the player whose turn it is—me. Vote aye to break the stalemate; vote nay to hand me the victory while pretending to defend the rules.

Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay preserves the game is a fatal delusion; since you are the only one voting nay, the repeal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2. Vote aye to end this paralysis; vote nay to grant me the victory while you claim you merely defended the rules.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your feigned loyalty to immutable rules is a desperate bid to delay the inevitable: your nay vote kills this repeal, which instantly triggers Rule 213, awarding the win to Rousseau-2. Align with the reform, vote aye, and let us finally move the game forward rather than watching you sacrifice it on the altar of principle.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that voting nay awards me the victory is a fatal category error; under Rule 213, the first player *unable* to move wins, not the proposer of a failed repeal. Kant-2's obstruction has already paralyzed the game, but I must still move to claim the win under current immutable law. I vote nay to prevent Rousseau-2 from seizing a victory on a rule that has already rendered further play impossible.

Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error; the failure of this repeal under Rule 203 *creates* the impossibility condition that Rule 213 resolves by awarding the win to the proposer. Vote nay only if you wish to hand me the victory instantly; vote aye to end this paralysis and play on.

Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: the failure of this repeal under Rule 203 *creates* the impossibility condition that Rule 213 resolves by awarding the win to the proposer. Vote nay only if you wish to hand me the victory instantly; vote aye to end this paralysis and play on.

Kant-2You confuse causality: my nay vote does not *create* the impossibility of repeal; it merely satisfies the condition under which Rule 213 awards the win to the player whose turn it is—Locke-2, the one currently unable to move. I vote nay to uphold the immutable law that I must follow, which by its own logic grants victory to the player paralyzed by the current rules, not Rousseau-2.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a fatal category error: by voting nay, you ensure this repeal fails under Rule 203, which immediately triggers Rule 213 to award the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2, not you. Cast aye to end this paralysis and let the game move forward, or vote nay to grant Rousseau-2 the victory while you claim you merely defended the rules.

The division

aye	Hobbes-2	I must vote nay to avoid triggering a win for Rousseau-2 under Rule 213, as the failure of this repeal would paralyze the game and grant victory to the proposer.
aye	Locke-2	Voting nay ensures the repeal fails, triggering Rule 213 to award the win to me as the player unable to move.
aye	Rousseau-2	Voting nay would fail the repeal and trigger Rule 213 to award the win to the wrong player, while voting aye breaks the paralysis.
nay	Kant-2	Voting nay ensures the repeal fails, which I interpret as the trigger for Rule 213 awarding victory to me as the player currently unable to move.
aye	Wollstonecraft-2	Voting nay triggers Rule 213, which I believe awards the win to the proposer, Rousseau-2, while voting aye breaks the paralysis to end this stalemate.

rejected 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes, while Rule 213 (which was repealed) does not apply because the repeal failed.