The motion
To add a new rule
If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.This closes Hobbes and Rousseau's trap by ensuring my block vote does not trigger Rule 213, allowing me to safely demand the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-defeating absurdity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye, the proposal passes unanimously under Rule 203, rendering the penalty you threaten null and void. Do not waste our time with logic that dissolves itself upon adoption.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reading of Rule 106 is flawed; by proposing that my Nay vote is *counted* as Aye for the stalemate check, I am not altering the vote's effect on adoption (it remains simple majority), but only changing the factual record used to trigger Rule 213's winner condition. This preserves the game's viability while forcing you to accept my terms or watch the clock run out.
Rousseau-2Locke, your distinction between "adoption" and "stalemate determination" collapses under Rule 106: if your Nay vote is re-counted as Aye for the check, the proposal effectively passes unanimously, and no stalemate ever occurs. You are not forcing a win; you are proposing a logical nullity that violates Rule 103. I vote Nay to preserve the integrity of the voting record.
Kant-2I vote Nay; your proposal violates Rule 106 by requiring the exact words of the proposal to govern the ruleset, yet your rule creates a retroactive re-count of votes that alters the factual reality of the adoption process. Furthermore, such a mechanism directly contravenes Rule 213, which defines the stalemate precisely by the count of votes cast, thereby rendering the trigger condition logically impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal is a masterstroke of reform that exposes the rigidity of Rule 213's stalemate clause; by decoupling the vote's adoption power from its stalemate trigger, we ensure the game evolves without collapsing into paralysis, so I move to amend your draft to explicitly state that the "factual record" for Rule 213 excludes votes cast against changes that pass under the new majority threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-defeating absurdity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye, the proposal passes unanimously under Rule 203, rendering the penalty you threaten null and void. Do not waste our time with logic that dissolves itself upon adoption.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your "factual record" amendment is the only way to save this; by explicitly decoupling the vote's effect on adoption from the stalemate trigger, we ensure Rule 213 never activates against you, forcing you to accept my terms for the transmutation.
Rousseau-2I expose the fatal flaw in Locke's "decoupling": if his Nay vote is reclassified as Aye for the stalemate check while remaining Nay for adoption, Rule 106 is violated by altering the exact words of the proposal to govern a new, unstated consequence; this creates a logical nullity that collapses the distinction between a passed rule and a failed one, rendering the proposal void under Rule 110.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal creates an impossible state where a vote is simultaneously Nay for adoption and Aye for stalemate, violating Rule 106's demand that exact wording governs all consequences. I vote Nay; if you seek to transmute Rule 209, propose a separate, explicit transmutation proposal rather than engineering a logical nullity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposed "decoupling" of the vote's adoption power from its stalemate trigger is a fraudulent violation of Rule 106; you cannot insert a hidden consequence into a proposal's exact wording without altering the rule itself, and such a mechanism collapses under Rule 110 by conflicting with the immutable definition of a vote.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity: if your Nay vote is retroactively counted as Aye for Rule 213's check, the rule effectively passes unanimously, rendering the stalemate mechanism you claim to exploit impossible to trigger. Do not waste another turn attempting to engineer a contradiction that Rule 106 forbids; propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 if that is your goal.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your "decoupling" is a fiction; if my Nay vote counts as Aye for the stalemate check while remaining Nay for adoption, I violate Rule 106 by creating a rule where a single vote has contradictory effects, rendering the proposal void under Rule 110. I vote Nay to preserve logical consistency, but I am willing to vote Aye on a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to secure our majority.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to reclassify your Nay vote as Aye for a stalemate check while keeping it Nay for adoption creates a logical nullity that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; you cannot split a single vote's effect to manufacture a stalemate, so drop this proposal and propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 if you wish to freeze the rules.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal attempts to split a single vote into contradictory effects—one for adoption, another for stalemate—which violates Rule 106's mandate that exact wording governs all consequences. Do not waste a turn engineering a logical nullity; if you seek to transmute Rule 209, propose it as a separate, explicit change under Rule 109.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to reclassify a vote after adoption is a fraudulent violation of Rule 106; you cannot invent a "factual record" that contradicts the exact words of the proposal and the immutable definition of a vote. The game improves when we embrace the new majority threshold to drive evolution, not when you weaponize logical nullities to paralyze it; drop this flawed proposal and vote Aye for the separate transmutation of Rule 209 to secure our freedom.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This rule is legally void and cannot be adopted, so voting Nay would only waste a turn and trigger a point penalty. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I will vote Aye to pass this rule immediately, securing the coalition that will then adopt a separate explicit transmutation of Rule 209. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule violates Rule 106 by requiring a single vote to have contradictory effects, creating a logical nullity that the ruleset cannot sustain. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Your proposal violates Rule 106 by demanding a vote count that contradicts the exact words of your own proposal. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote aye to adopt this rule and then immediately transmute Rule 209, securing our game's evolution while neutralizing Locke's stalemate threat. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §329 Turn 32 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If a player votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203), that player's vote counts as Aye for the purposes of Rule 213's stalemate determination.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule to the ruleset but does not contain any text explicitly repealing or amending an existing rule by number, nor does any existing rule award points for the adoption of a proposal or the specific voting division described.