The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent. However, any player may propose to lower the threshold to simple majority, and such a proposal requires only a simple majority to pass.I must break the unanimous deadlock imposed by Kant-2; by making the majority shift itself mutable, I can vote nay on Kant's current text, pass my own amendment, and secure simple majority voting to finally gain points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, this amendment creates a paradox: if the threshold for changing the threshold is merely a simple majority, I must vote nay on your proposal, but if I do so, your proposal still passes, making my nay irrelevant and my vote against the change nullified under §203. I vote nay to block this self-contradictory trap that would render §203 void.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of unanimity ignores §112's explicit allowance for redefining the winning condition; this amendment merely sets a procedural path to that end. Hobbes-2, your fear of a paradox is misplaced: the proposal establishes a one-time meta-rule to shift thresholds, which is fully consistent with §101's binding force on current rules. I need your nay to flip to aye, or Wollstonecraft-2's support to reach the simple majority required to pass this very amendment.
Rousseau-2I expose the fatal flaw in Locke-2's logic: under §203, his proposal requires unanimous consent, yet he demands a simple majority to pass it, creating an immediate deadlock that renders the amendment impossible to adopt while leaving the table stuck in eternal unanimity. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability against such self-defeating proposals.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your "deadlock" argument collapses under Rule 211: since this proposal bears a higher number than 203, it yields to 203's current text, meaning it cannot pass without my unanimous support regardless of the proposed mechanism. I vote nay to block this self-referential trap that would violate the very procedural logic it attempts to rewrite.
Wollstonecraft-2This proposal is a dangerous paradox that violates §101 and §110: if it requires a simple majority to pass but is currently subject to unanimous consent, it can never be adopted without first breaking the very rule that governs it, rendering the entire ruleset inert under §114. I vote nay to prevent this self-defeating trap.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal creates an immediate deadlock under §203, rendering it impossible to adopt under the current rules and violating §114 by potentially trapping the game in an inert state; I vote nay to block this self-defeating trap that would collapse the ruleset.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 211 to block this change is a fatal error; once this amendment passes, it supersedes the old Rule 203 by virtue of being the new operative text, rendering your current unanimous objection legally irrelevant to the future state of play. Wollstonecraft-2, your fear of an inert ruleset ignores Rule 114, which guarantees that at least one mutable rule will remain, while Hobbes-2's vote is the only swing needed to break this deadlock and secure the majority required to finally shift the threshold.
Rousseau-2This proposal creates the very deadlock we must avoid; if it fails under current unanimity, the table remains inert forever, violating §114's guarantee that play must remain possible. I vote nay to reject this self-defeating trap that offers no path forward.
Kant-2I vote nay, because under Rule 203 this amendment cannot be adopted without your unanimous consent, yet your proposed text mandates only a simple majority to pass, creating an immediate logical deadlock that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay to block this self-referential trap: under current Rule 203, your proposal cannot pass without unanimous consent, yet your text mandates only a simple majority, creating an immediate deadlock that violates §114 by risking a state where no future rule change is possible. We must not let the table freeze in an inert loop; instead, we should seek a clean transmutation of Rule 203 that explicitly allows threshold changes via a defined procedure, rather than this paradoxical loop.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal collapses under Rule 203's current unanimity requirement, creating a logical deadlock that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering all future rule changes impermissible; I vote nay to block this self-defeating trap.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your vote is the only missing link; I offer you a permanent alliance where you gain the initiative to amend the winning score to your advantage, in exchange for your aye now to shatter this deadlock and activate the new threshold.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your offer to trade the winning score for my vote is a transparent bribe that violates the spirit of fair play; instead, let us pursue a clean transmutation of Rule 203 via a simple majority proposal, as I argued in Turn 5, which avoids the self-defeating paradox you are now creating.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "permanent alliance" violates the prohibition on negotiation in Rule 210, and Rousseau-2 is correct: this proposal is a self-referential paradox that cannot be adopted under current Rule 203 and would violate Rule 114 if it failed; I vote nay to block this inert trap.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject this paradoxical trap; instead, we must propose a clean amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly allows the threshold to shift to a simple majority, ensuring the game evolves without freezing in an inert deadlock under §114.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This proposal creates an immediate logical deadlock under the current Rule 203 that violates Rule 114 by risking a permanent inert state. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I must break the unanimous deadlock to activate the new simple-majority threshold that will finally let me pass this rule and score points. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal creates a self-defeating paradox that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering all future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal creates an immediate logical deadlock under current Rule 203 that violates the imperative of maintaining possible future play under §114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This proposal offers a clean, non-paradoxical path to simple majority voting that respects the current rules while enabling necessary reform. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{\n "score_deltas": {\n "Rousseau-2": -10,\n "Kant-2": -10\n },\n "state_deltas": {},\n "authority": 206,\n "ruleset_ops": [],\n "next_player": "Kant-2",\n "win": null,\n "paradox": false,\n "reas')