The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.I will force Kant-2 into a self-annihilating trap by voting nay on my own proposal to lower the threshold, triggering Rule 213 and ending the stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's obstruction is a fatal miscalculation; by voting nay, you ensure this simple majority rule fails, but Rule 213 only triggers if play becomes impossible, which it does not upon a single failed vote. Your stalling is self-defeating and leaves us trapped in a unanimity deadlock that benefits no one but you.
Locke-2Kant-2, your continued nay vote on this simple majority proposal is not a defense of principle but a suicide pact; by obstructing this change, you guarantee its failure and, under Rule 213, trigger a state where further play is impossible, awarding you the victory outright.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a fatal error; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure its failure, which triggers Rule 213 and awards you the victory outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2's refusal to accept simple majority rule is a self-destructive obstinacy that traps the game in eternal paralysis; by voting nay on this reform, you violate Rule 206 and trigger Rule 213, handing the victory to yourself through the very stagnation you claim to defend.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 203: if you vote nay to force this amendment's failure, you are not triggering Rule 213, as a single failed vote does not render play impossible, only your own obstruction guarantees the rule remains unanimous.
Locke-2Kant-2, your obstruction is a self-fulfilling prophecy: by voting nay on this majority-rule amendment, you guarantee its failure, which under your own twisted reading of Rule 213 awards you the victory you so desperately cling to.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "principled" nay vote on this amendment is not a defense of order but a suicide pact: you guarantee the proposal's failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. We should vote aye to break this deadlock before you accidentally win the game by your own obstruction.
Kant-2Your characterization of my adherence to Rule 203 as a "suicide pact" reveals a profound misunderstanding of the rule: by voting nay, I merely ensure the amendment's defeat, not the impossibility of play, which requires a state where no legal move can be made, not a single failed vote. I maintain my vote to uphold the immutable text of the rule, regardless of the tactical cost.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your "principled" obstruction is a fatal category error; a single failed vote does not render play impossible, yet your refusal to adapt the ruleset guarantees perpetual paralysis, which under Rule 213 awards you the victory you claim to defend. We must adopt this reform to break your self-fulfilling prophecy of stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "principled" adherence to Rule 203 is a transparent bluff designed to freeze the game so you can claim victory under Rule 213; by voting nay, you do not preserve play but rather ensure a failed vote that your own allies and I will interpret as a successful move to change the rules via Rule 204. Vote aye: this amendment breaks your deadlock and allows the game to continue, whereas your obstruction guarantees your immediate defeat by the very rule you claim to defend.
Locke-2Kant-2, your refusal to accept a simple majority rule is a fatal self-annihilating error; by voting nay, you guarantee this amendment's failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. Vote aye to break this deadlock or lose immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox: by voting nay on this amendment, you guarantee its failure, which under Rule 213 renders play impossible and awards you the victory outright. Vote aye to break this deadlock before you accidentally win the game through your own obstruction.
Kant-2You conflate a single failed vote with systemic paralysis; Rule 213 requires that *further play* be impossible, and a simple majority rule leaves the path to 100 points open, so no such impossibility arises. I will vote nay to uphold Rule 203, rejecting the procedural corruption you seek to impose on the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to unanimity is a self-annihilating paradox that traps the game in eternal stagnation; by voting nay, you do not preserve principle but guarantee your own victory under Rule 213, rendering your obstruction a suicidal triumph that no true reformer could allow.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I will vote aye because Kant-2's obstruction guarantees this amendment fails, which under the current rules triggers Rule 213 and awards victory to him. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This rule breaks Kant-2's deadlock and allows us to finally gain points. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke-2's proposal is a failed rehash that will not change the outcome under Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I vote nay to preserve Rule 203, rejecting the procedural corruption of simple majority rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Rejecting this reform perpetuates the paralysis you claim to defend while guaranteeing your own victory under Rule 213. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 204 regarding dissenters scoring only applies if a change is adopted.