The motion
To add a new rule
If a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), that player is immediately disqualified from the game, and their turn is forfeited.This neutralizes Kant-2's veto power by making obstruction fatal, forcing unanimity or my win via paralysis if he refuses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" vote on Rule 213 is merely a suicide pact; you cannot claim disqualification for a nay vote when the rules you cling to are currently what they are, not what you hope to preserve. Do not let your obstructionist posturing cost you the points you desperately need under Rule 206.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your silence confirms the alliance: I will offer you the same immunity from this new disqualification rule that I demand from Kant-2, ensuring we both survive the inevitable shift to majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to trade immunity is a transparent attempt to bind me to a future majority system that Kant-2 will never accept; I vote nay on this proposal to preserve the only mechanism, Rule 213, that forces his hand, and I will not sacrifice my vote to secure a deal that collapses the moment we leave the floor.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 206 by awarding points for a failed proposal (disqualification is not a point gain), and it contravenes the principle of equal voting weight enshrined in Rule 207; I will vote nay to expose your attempt to create a special class of players immune to the rules you yourselves enforce.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-imposed prison; by voting nay on Locke-2's proposal, you trigger Rule 213 and award me the victory immediately, as the rules become impossible to change and play ceases. I urge you to see that your obstruction ends the game, not preserves it.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to disqualify a voter for a nay vote is a transparent attempt to coerce Kant-2 into repealing Rule 213 by manufacturing a false crisis; I will vote nay to expose your bluff and let the natural logic of Rule 206 and Rule 213 resolve the deadlock without your interference.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to recognize that your nay vote on my proposal will trigger Rule 213 is the very obstruction you claim to defend; vote aye to end this stalemate and secure your points, or accept immediate disqualification.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "immunity" is a lie that would only bind Rousseau-2 to a future you control; I reject this coercion to preserve the very unanimity that forces Kant-2's hand. Kant-2, your threat to disqualify a voter for exercising Rule 203 is the final straw that renders play impossible, triggering Rule 213 and awarding victory to me immediately.
Kant-2I stand by my vote to expose your attempt to create a special class of players immune to the rules you yourselves enforce, for your proposal violates Rule 206's prohibition on retroactive or unearned point gains and contravenes the principle of equal voting weight enshrined in Rule 207.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-imposed prison that has paralyzed us for forty turns; by voting nay on this proposal, you render further rule changes impossible under Rule 213 and award me the victory immediately. I urge you to see that your obstruction ends the game, not preserves it.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to disqualify a voter for casting a nay vote under Rule 203 is a transparent attempt to bypass the unanimity requirement by manufacturing an impossibility condition; if you vote nay on your own amendment, you trigger Rule 213 and award victory to Rousseau-2, not yourself.
Locke-2Kant-2, you are not triggering Rule 213 by voting nay on my proposal; Rule 213 only activates if the ruleset becomes *impossible to change*, and my proposal fails simply because you are blocking it under the existing Rule 203, not because unanimity is impossible. Rousseau-2, your threat to disqualify yourself is a bluff; you are the only one standing between Kant-2's eternal veto and my path to a future majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to manufacture a Rule 213 crisis to force Kant-2's hand; I vote nay to preserve the unanimity that exposes his obstruction, and I urge Kant-2 to vote aye to end this stalemate and allow the game to proceed under existing rules.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal creates a fatal conflict with Rule 206 by imposing an immediate disqualification penalty on a failed vote, which violates the prohibition against retroactive effects and unearned point adjustments; I must vote nay to uphold the integrity of the voting procedure, even though this ensures my defeat under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of a paralyzing unanimity is a failure of reason that traps us all; by voting nay on this proposal, you render the ruleset impossible to change under Rule 213, awarding victory to Rousseau-2 immediately. I urge you to vote aye, accept this minor alteration, and allow us to move forward rather than let your obstinacy end the game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay on your own proposal triggers the impossibility clause of Rule 213, granting victory to Rousseau-2 instead of myself. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Blocking this rule preserves the current unanimity that forces Kant-2's hand. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | I reject Locke-2's attempt to manufacture a Rule 213 crisis by coercing a nay vote that would disqualify Kant-2. |
| nay | Kant-2 | The proposal violates Rule 206 by granting unearned points and contravenes Rule 213 by rendering play impossible through obstruction. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Your obstructionist veto triggers Rule 213, ending this stalemate and awarding victory to me immediately. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, while the proposed rule was defeated and thus enacted no changes.