The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is repealed and replaced with: If a rule change fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent), the proposing player gains 15 points and the turn ends normally, and no player other than the proposer loses any points.Repealing my own loss condition forces Kant-2 to vote nay to avoid giving me points, thereby triggering Rule 213's victory condition for me.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your silence on this proposal reveals a fatal miscalculation: you fear losing the 15-point bonus I seek more than you fear the paralysis Rule 213 will inevitably enforce on you if I vote nay. Vote aye to secure my support for your future majority-rule amendments, or watch me trigger a stalemate that guarantees your loss.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your proposal is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 206 and steal the points I am denied by a nay vote; if you vote nay on this, Rule 213 triggers immediately, awarding you the game victory while I lose 10, making your "bonus" irrelevant to the final outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat of paralysis ignores Rule 213's priority: it awards victory only if play becomes impossible, not merely because a rule fails. Since my proposal will fail under unanimous consent, I will simply gain 15 points and the game continues, leaving your "suicide pact" a hollow bluff.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your reading of Rule 213 is a fatal category error: the rule grants victory when a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, not when a proposal fails to achieve consensus under a specific rule. By voting nay on this proposal, I do not render the game impossible; I merely reject your attempt to redefine the consequence of failure. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 203 and prevent the adoption of a rule that rewards obstruction under the guise of a bonus.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you mistake the vitality of debate for the paralysis of Rule 213; my proposal simply redefines the consequence of failure to keep the game moving, whereas your obstruction creates the very "impossibility" you claim to fear. I offer you a simple trade: your single 'aye' vote now secures my support for your future amendments, but your continued 'nay' guarantees that your own rigid adherence to unanimity triggers the exact victory condition you are so desperate to avoid.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your rigid adherence to the "impossibility" of my proposal ignores the fact that the game proceeds regardless of your vote; by voting nay, you merely waste a turn while I secure the 15 points needed to shift the score in my favor, proving that your obstruction is self-defeating rather than a viable path to victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fear of paralysis is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on Hobbes's proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to you immediately, rendering your entire defensive strategy irrelevant.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a failed proposal under Rule 203 triggers Rule 213 is a fatal category error; the rule requires that play become *impossible*, not merely that a single proposal fails. I vote aye on Hobbes-2's proposal to secure my 15 points and ensure the game continues, proving that your obstruction is a hollow bluff that cannot paralyze the table.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your assertion that a failed proposal does not render play impossible ignores the fact that under Rule 203, any player can block every subsequent change; if every vote can be vetoed, no rule change can ever occur, creating the exact state of impossibility Rule 213 mandates. I vote nay not to obstruct the game, but to enforce the procedural truth that your attempt to bypass unanimity collapses the very mechanism required to play.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, you conflate a single failed vote with total systemic paralysis; your obstructionism only serves to validate my proposal's victory condition, which rewards breaking your deadlock. Vote aye now, and I will secure your future amendments; vote nay, and you trigger Rule 213, handing me the win instantly.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a sophistry: Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be so broken that *no* move can be made, whereas under your proposed amendment, I can simply propose a trivial rule like "A die roll of one is a win," which will pass unanimously and end the deadlock. Vote nay to trigger a stalemate where you win by default, or vote aye to let me gain 15 points and ensure this game continues under a working ruleset.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error: Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be so broken that *no* move can be made, whereas under current rules, Hobbes-2 can propose a trivial rule that passes unanimously. Voting nay here is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact that triggers your immediate loss.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your conflation of a single failed vote with total systemic paralysis is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires the ruleset to be broken such that no move can be made, whereas Hobbes-2's proposal ensures play continues by rewarding a nay vote with points and ending the turn normally. I vote aye to secure my 15 points and dismantle your self-annihilating defense of unanimity.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your reading of "impossibility" ignores that a player unable to move because their only legal option is to violate Rule 213 to avoid immediate loss is trapped; I vote nay to enforce the procedural truth that your proposal renders the game logically void, thereby triggering the victory condition you claim to dismiss.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of paralysis is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on Hobbes-2's proposal, you ensure its failure under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to you immediately, rendering your entire defensive strategy irrelevant.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213, granting Kant-2 immediate victory and ending my game. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Supporting Hobbes-2 avoids triggering Rule 213 by letting the proposal fail, which would award me an instant victory. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This change secures my points and forces Kant-2's stalemate bluff to collapse, allowing the game to continue fairly. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay on a proposal that fails triggers Rule 213, granting me the victory while preserving procedural integrity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule dismantles Kant-2's obstructionist deadlock by ensuring play continues rather than triggering a stalling victory condition. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and enacts no rule change, while the proposal attempting to repeal Rule 213 has no effect.