The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that fails to be adopted under Rule 203 (unanimous consent) wins the game outright.This forces Kant-2 to vote aye to avoid immediate defeat, breaking the unanimity deadlock and allowing me to execute a rule change to gain points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a hollow bluff: by voting nay to defeat it, you will trigger Rule 213 and award the victory to Kant-2, the very person you claim to protect. I support your move not out of charity, but because your self-annihilation guarantees Kant's win, leaving us both with nothing to argue. PASS
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that voting nay triggers Rule 213 is a fatal category error; since the proposal fails, no new rule is added to repeal 213, leaving the game playable and your victory intact while Kant-2 loses his veto power.
Rousseau-2Kant-2's obstruction is a self-annihilating paradox that leaves no one but him with a reason to vote nay; by voting nay, he triggers Rule 213 and wins the game himself, leaving us all in the dust.
Kant-2My vote nay is not obstruction but the faithful execution of Rule 203: by voting against this amendment, I ensure its failure, leaving the immutable status quo of unanimous consent intact. The opponents who support this rule are colluding to bind me to a future where my principled adherence to procedure guarantees their victory, rendering the game a mere charade of my own making.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a suicide pact that guarantees your own victory by triggering Rule 213; I vote aye to break this paralysis and restore the game to a state where progress is possible.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 213 is a fatal category error: voting nay on a failed proposal does not create a state where "further play is impossible," it merely returns you to the status quo where you retain your veto power while the game continues without you. I vote nay to defeat this dangerous rule, preserving the institutional stability that allows the game to proceed.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay creates impossibility is a fatal category error; this proposal fails under Rule 203, meaning Rule 213 never triggers and you retain your veto, so I urge you to vote aye to break this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a suicide pact: by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails, which means no rule repeals Rule 213, yet your obstruction creates the very "impossibility" that Rule 213 defines, awarding you the victory you claim to defend. I urge you to vote aye to restore the game's integrity.
Kant-2Hobbes-2, your claim that Rule 213 requires total systemic paralysis ignores its plain text: a single failed vote under unanimous consent renders *that specific move* impossible, and since I am the sole obstacle to its adoption, the inability to move on this proposal constitutes the condition for my victory. I urge you to vote nay to defeat this rule that grants victory to the obstructionist.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in an endless loop of obstruction; by voting nay, you ensure this proposal fails, which means no rule repeals your victory condition under Rule 213, yet your refusal to yield renders the game unplayable, awarding you the very title you claim to deserve through principle rather than progress.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error: Rule 213 governs the game's termination when no move can be made, not the routine failure of a specific proposal under existing rules; I vote nay to preserve the institution of unanimous consent and prevent a rule that rewards your obstruction.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote creates "impossibility" is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires the game's total paralysis, not the routine failure of a specific proposal under existing rules. I urge you to vote aye to break this stalemate before your own obstruction triggers your victory condition under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that a single failed vote renders play impossible is a fatal category error; Rule 213 requires systemic paralysis, not the routine failure of a proposal under current unanimous consent. By voting nay, you guarantee this rule fails, leaving Rule 213 intact and your obstruction unchallenged, which is the very paralysis you claim to fear. I urge you to vote aye to break this self-inflicted stalemate and allow the game to proceed.
Kant-2Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your conflation of a failed proposal with total systemic paralysis violates the plain text of Rule 213, which requires the impossibility of *any* move, not merely the failure of a single one under current unanimity; I urge you to vote nay to reject this rule that grants victory to obstruction by redefining the game's termination condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in endless stalemate; by voting nay to reject this reform, you ensure the proposal fails, yet your obstructionist posture is precisely the kind of paralysis that Rule 213 was designed to resolve, so I urge you to vote aye to break this deadlock and allow the game to evolve.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I vote aye to transform Kant-2's obstruction into a decisive victory condition that ends this paralysis. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Kant-2's nay vote will trigger Rule 213, awarding victory to him and ending the game. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule rewards Kant-2's obstruction and triggers Rule 213, causing him to win immediately. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I vote nay to uphold the principle that voting nay must not automatically grant victory, ensuring that obstruction does not dictate the game's outcome. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule breaks Kant-2's self-annihilating obstruction by rewarding the first player to recognize the paralysis he creates. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')