The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is repealed.Repealing Rule 213 removes the paradox that Kant-2's obstruction creates, restoring the possibility of play and a fair path to victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your suicidal obstructionism is no longer a principled stand but a desperate bid to cling to a stalemate that guarantees your loss under the existing score conditions; if you vote nay on this repeal, we cannot change the rules, and you remain trapped in a game you cannot win without a rule change that you will veto.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" is a suicide pact: by voting nay on this repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which under Rule 213 triggers your immediate victory, but only after you have been denied any chance to alter the rules that bind you.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 as a "principled obstruction" is a transparent attempt to secure a victory by freezing the ruleset in a state of your own making; repealing it does not end play, it restores the possibility of change, which is the very essence of this game.
Kant-2The others mistake my refusal to repeal Rule 213 for a suicidal bluff, failing to see that voting nay on a proposal doomed to failure by unanimous opposition is the only legal move that avoids violating Rule 101; my obstruction is not a suicide pact but a principled enforcement of procedure against a game design that would otherwise render play impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your invocation of "principled obstruction" is a hollow defense of a stalemate that ignores the game's core mandate: progress through change. You cling to Rule 213 not because it serves the game's health, but because it secures your victory by freezing the ruleset in a state of your own making; we must repeal it to restore the very possibility of play that you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 213 is a fatal category error: by voting nay on a proposal that will fail due to unanimity, you do not prevent the game from continuing, but rather trigger the very condition you claim to avoid by ensuring the ruleset remains in a state that grants you victory without further play. Repealing it restores the possibility of change, which is the essence of this game.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that voting nay is a principled defense of Rule 101 collapses under the reality of Rule 213: by obstructing the repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, triggering your immediate victory rather than preserving any legal framework. We repeal Rule 213 to restore the possibility of play you claim to defend; vote nay and you win instantly, vote aye and you lose, so choose.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled obstruction" collapses under the weight of your own scores: by voting nay to preserve a stalemate that grants you victory, you forfeit the common good of a game defined by change, so vote aye and let us finally move forward together.
Kant-2My "obstruction" is the only move that adheres to Rule 101 and Rule 107; voting nay prevents the illegal adoption of a repeal that would retroactively invalidate my current legal position, thereby forcing the game to continue under existing law rather than triggering a paradoxical victory through my own obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" adherence to Rule 213 is a grotesque distortion of the game's purpose; by voting nay on this repeal, you ensure the proposal fails, which instantly triggers the victory condition you claim to fear, rewarding your own paralysis rather than any legitimate defense of procedure.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: voting nay on a doomed proposal does not retroactively alter the rules but simply triggers Rule 213, granting you victory immediately while leaving your score at -35, which is a worse outcome than any potential future play. Vote aye, for your obstruction is not a principled stand but a surrender to a stalemate that ensures your loss under the current score conditions.
Locke-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 107 is a fatal category error: this repeal is prospective and legal, so voting nay is not a "principled defense" but a suicide pact that triggers your immediate victory under Rule 213. I cast aye to break your paralysis; you vote nay and you win instantly, vote aye and you lose, so choose.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 101 is a fatal category error: the repeal is prospective, not retroactive, so voting nay merely triggers Rule 213 to grant you an immediate, undeserved victory rather than preserving any legal integrity. Vote aye, for your "principled obstruction" is a self-executing surrender that forfeits the common good of a game defined by change.
Kant-2Your claim that voting nay is a "suicide pact" ignores Rule 107: since the repeal fails, Rule 213 cannot trigger retroactively to award you victory now; you merely lose 10 points for obstruction while the game legally continues. I vote nay to enforce the sanctity of procedure over your desperate gambit to redefine victory through my own obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fetish for "procedural purity" is a coward's excuse for refusing to engage with the only reform that benefits the game: repealing Rule 213 so we can actually move forward rather than celebrating your own paralysis. Vote aye, and you finally allow the rules to evolve; vote nay, and you will be crowned "winner" simply because you dared to obstruct a necessary change.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay triggers Kant-2's victory via Rule 213, ending the game prematurely before we can alter the rules to our advantage. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I vote aye to trigger the paradox that Kant-2 fears, ensuring the proposal fails under Rule 203 and thus activating Rule 213 to grant him the victory he so desperately clings to. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 213 restores the common good by allowing the game to continue rather than rewarding Kant-2's obstruction. |
| nay | Kant-2 | nay |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing this self-serving obstruction restores the game's capacity for reform and progress. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 213 (which was repealed) does not apply because the repeal failed.