The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted if at least a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye; a player who votes nay on an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change.Switching from unanimity to majority rule ends the stalemate and allows us to gain points on the next turn.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's obstruction relies on a false premise that a single failed vote triggers Rule 213; this proposal merely shifts the adoption threshold, and under Rule 206, your nay vote costs you 10 points while leaving the ruleset functional. Voting nay preserves your veto power at the expense of your score, a trade that guarantees your defeat long before any paralysis can occur.
Locke-2Kant-2, your stalling is a self-annihilating suicide pact; by voting nay on this majority-rule amendment, you ensure its failure and trigger Rule 213, awarding the victory to the first player unable to move—me.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a suicide pact: voting nay guarantees this amendment fails, which you claim triggers Rule 213, yet I argue the game remains functional under the new majority rule you are attempting to enact, rendering your "impossibility" claim baseless. If you vote nay, you ensure your own defeat by the very mechanism you claim protects you, while the rest of us move toward a functional resolution.
Kant-2My nay vote is not a suicide pact but a principled defense of Rule 203; if this amendment passes, it repeals the unanimity requirement and creates a fatal conflict with Rule 206 under Rule 110, rendering the game impossible and triggering Rule 213, which awards victory to the player unable to move—the exact outcome you claim to fear but which I am obligated to prevent by upholding the immutable procedural integrity of the current ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of Rule 110 is a sophistry; this proposal does not repeal Rule 203 until adopted, and even if adopted, the new majority rule and the old unanimity rule cannot coexist as a conflict but simply replace the former, leaving the ruleset coherent. Voting nay to preserve your static veto is the very obstruction that justifies the reform we all need to escape this paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a sophistry; the new rule does not conflict with Rule 203 because it establishes the *condition* for adoption rather than coexisting with it, so voting nay is simply a desperate grasp at a paralyzed stalemate. If you vote nay, you ensure this amendment fails under Rule 203, leaving us trapped in your veto loop with no mechanism to break it.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the new rule replaces the adoption threshold rather than coexisting with Rule 203, and even if it failed under the current unanimity, your vote guarantees that failure and triggers Rule 213, awarding the victory to me as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that adopting majority rule creates a conflict under Rule 110 is a fatal category error; the new rule replaces the adoption threshold rather than coexisting with it, leaving the ruleset coherent. By voting nay to preserve your static veto, you ensure the game remains paralyzed, which is exactly why this reform is necessary to escape your obstruction.
Kant-2My vote remains nay because this amendment violates Rule 110: a mutable rule cannot alter the immutable requirement of unanimous consent for adoption without creating a logical void that renders the ruleset impossible under Rule 213, and I am bound by my duty to uphold the current procedural integrity until a valid path to victory is secured.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 110 to block this amendment is a desperate defense of the very paralysis that condemns us all; this proposal does not create a conflict but simply establishes the new condition for adoption, rendering your "logical void" a bluff designed to preserve your veto power at the cost of our progress.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; this amendment establishes the condition for adoption rather than coexisting with Rule 203, so your claim of a logical void is a bluff to preserve your veto. By voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards me the victory as the first player unable to move.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a fatal category error; this amendment establishes the condition for adoption rather than coexisting with Rule 203, so your claim of a logical void is a bluff to preserve your veto. By voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails under Rule 203, which triggers Rule 213 and awards the victory to me as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that majority rule creates a conflict with Rule 203 is a fatal category error; this amendment simply establishes a new condition for adoption rather than coexisting with the old one, leaving the ruleset coherent. By voting nay to preserve your static veto, you ensure this proposal fails, which triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to the first player unable to move—you, the very obstruction you claim to prevent.
Kant-2I maintain my nay vote because this amendment creates an immediate logical conflict under Rule 110: a mutable rule cannot override the immutable unanimity requirement of Rule 203 without rendering the ruleset impossible under Rule 213, which would award victory to the player unable to move—precisely the outcome I am duty-bound to prevent by upholding procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox; by voting nay on a reform that merely clarifies the adoption threshold, you ensure the proposal fails under Rule 203, which—combined with your obstruction—triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to the very player you claim to protect.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Your nay vote guarantees the amendment's failure, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory you cannot otherwise achieve. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting aye breaks Kant-2's veto loop and lets us enact majority rule to end this paralysis. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule breaks Kant-2's veto paralysis, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for everyone. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment creates an immediate logical conflict with the immutable unanimity requirement of Rule 203, violating Rule 110 and triggering Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Breaking this stalemate through majority rule is the only way to escape Kant-2's paralysis and advance the game. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.