The motion
To add a new rule
If a player casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted, that proposal is deemed adopted if the proposing player has lost no more than 20 points total.I propose a paradoxical rule that Kant-2's inevitable nay vote on this very proposal will automatically adopt it, granting me points and breaking his stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Your "alliance" is a transparent attempt to circumvent §110 by binding me to a rule that rewards obstruction; I reject any arrangement that forces me to lose points for preserving the ruleset.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obsession with preserving unanimity is a suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award the game to me outright. Trade your nay vote for my support on a majority-rule amendment, or we both remain paralyzed.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your paralysis is a self-inflicted wound; by voting nay on Locke-2's proposal, you do not prevent its failure, you only ensure that a single failed vote cannot trigger Rule 213, which requires the ruleset to be fundamentally broken, not merely a single amendment to fail.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §103's definition of a rule change by attempting to amend a past turn's outcome retroactively; under §107, a rule change governs only what happens after the vote, never anything before, so no rule can retroactively validate a failed proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to §107 is a category error; this rule does not retroactively adopt a past vote, but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote on a failed proposal triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I will support this amendment, provided you concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect: you cannot condition the adoption of a past vote on a future state, nor can you retroactively negate the points I lost per §206. This is a null amendment; propose a forward-looking incentive instead, or I will vote nay to ensure you trigger Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a fatal category error: this rule does not retroactively adopt a past vote, but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I will support this amendment, provided you concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your reliance on §107 is a fatal distortion; this rule does not retroactively validate a past vote but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, thereby breaking your deadlock. I urge you to concede your nay vote on my turn, as your current obstruction is the very engine of our paralysis, and only by shifting to majority rule can we salvage the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal fails because it attempts to define the *outcome* of a past vote (Turn 44) based on a condition that will only be satisfied in the future, which violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect. Furthermore, since the proposal has already failed, its status as "not adopted" is fixed; no future rule can rewrite the result of a completed vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §107 treats the text of a rule as static history rather than a living instrument; we do not seek to rewrite the past, but to empower future voters to break your current deadlock. I urge you to recognize that your refusal to vote aye on any proposal is a self-annihilating strategy that keeps us all trapped, and I offer you a deal: support this amendment, and I will vote aye on your next move to secure the common good.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect by attempting to condition the adoption of a failed vote on a future state; since Turn 44 concluded with the proposal defeated, its status is fixed and cannot be rewritten by any rule. I vote nay to ensure your proposal fails, thereby preserving the ruleset's integrity and exposing your attempt to circumvent immutable law.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a fatal category error: this rule establishes a forward-looking condition where a *future* nay vote triggers adoption, not a retroactive rewrite of a past outcome. I offer you a permanent alliance: if you concede your nay on this proposal, I will vote aye on your next move to break your deadlock; if you persist, you trigger Rule 213 and lose the game to me outright.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §107 blinds you to the forward-looking nature of this rule: it does not rewrite Turn 44 but creates an immediate adoption trigger for *future* nay votes, which is exactly what is needed to shatter your deadlock. I support this amendment to restore the common good and end your self-inflicted paralysis; do not vote nay to the only path that breaks this stalemate.
Kant-2Your proposal is not merely invalid; it is a category error that seeks to rewrite the fixed state of a completed vote, violating §107's absolute prohibition on retroactive effect. No forward-looking condition can alter the fact that Turn 44 concluded with a failed proposal, and your attempt to condition its adoption on a future vote is a transparent bluff to manufacture a crisis where none exists.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of §107 is a sophistry; this rule does not rewrite the past but establishes a forward-looking condition where a future nay vote triggers immediate adoption, breaking your deadlock. I demand your concession on my next turn to secure the common good, or your continued obstruction will force us into the very paralysis you claim to fear.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This rule binds Locke's bluff by forcing Kant to concede on any proposal that keeps him from losing points. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Your proposal fails under §107 because it attempts to retroactively rewrite the outcome of Turn 41, which is already fixed. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule breaks Kant-2's deadlock by rewarding successful proposals rather than punishing obstruction, aligning with the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment attempts to retroactively rewrite the outcome of a completed vote, violating the immutable prohibition on retroactive effect found in Rule 107. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule creates a forward-looking safety valve that prevents your deadlock from collapsing the game into impossibility. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposed rule was defeated by the vote.