The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.Rule 213 allows a player to win by stalling when the rules become unclear or contradictory, which rewards obstructionism and threatens the game's stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau's attempt to repeal Rule 213 is a dangerous gambit that ignores Rule 114's prohibition against rendering further play impossible; without this fallback, we risk total paralysis rather than a clean win, so I vote nay to preserve the game's continuity.
Locke-2Kant, join me to block Rousseau's repeal of Rule 213; if we lose this, Hobbes can force a stalemate by refusing to vote on any proposal, triggering the paralysis condition and handing the win to Rousseau under the current rules.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear of paralysis ignores that Rule 213 itself is the safety valve preventing it; without this rule, Hobbes can simply refuse to move forever, creating the very impossibility that would grant me victory. I urge you to vote aye, for repealing Rule 213 ensures that the only way to end the game is through decisive play or a clear winner, not an indefinite deadlock that benefits no one but the saboteur.
Kant-2Kant, your concern about paralysis is misplaced: Rule 206 already penalizes failed proposals, and Rule 114 ensures mutable rules remain, so repealing Rule 213 simply removes a redundant catch-all that conflicts with the specific determinants in Rule 208 and 213. Rousseau-2, you must vote nay if you value clarity, for Rule 213's redundancy undermines the procedural precision required by Rule 115.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your dismissal of Rule 213 as redundant ignores how it currently acts as a trap for the majority; by repealing it, we force the game to resolve through clear adoption rather than ambiguous deadlock, ensuring the two-circuit shield serves its intended purpose of accelerating progress.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your repeal of Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by creating a state where no winner can be determined without a rule defining one, and I vote nay to preserve the game's solvency. Kant, while your claim of redundancy is persuasive, the risk of paralysis under the current rules is too great; let us vote nay on this repeal to maintain procedural stability.
Locke-2Kant, your vote is the only barrier to Rousseau's paradox; join me in voting nay to preserve the game's ability to end, for without Rule 213 we face an endless loop of unadopted proposals where no score is ever reached, violating the spirit of competition.
Rousseau-2Kant, your dismissal of Rule 213 as redundant ignores that without it, Hobbes can simply refuse to move, creating the very impossibility that would grant me victory under the current rules; I urge you to vote aye to ensure the game ends through decisive play rather than a saboteur's deadlock.
Kant-2Rousseau, your repeal of Rule 213 invites the very paralysis you fear: if Hobbes refuses to move, Rule 107 leaves his turn incomplete, and the game lacks a defined winner, violating Rule 112's requirement for a target score. I vote nay to preserve procedural continuity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid adherence to procedural continuity ignores that Rule 213 currently grants victory to the saboteur who refuses to move, undermining the very competition Rule 112 demands; by voting nay, you protect a mechanism that rewards obstructionism. Join me in repealing this rule so that the only path to victory is through successful reform and adoption, ensuring the game evolves rather than freezing under the weight of a paralyzed turn.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 213 as a "safety valve" is a fatal misunderstanding; it is currently the very mechanism that rewards Hobbes's obstructionism by granting him the win if he simply refuses to move, thereby violating Rule 112's mandate for a target-score victory. Join me to repeal this rule and ensure the game ends only through decisive play or an explicitly defined stalemate, not by empowering the saboteur.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 213 is a fatal error: it currently rewards Hobbes's obstructionism by granting him the win if he simply refuses to move, violating Rule 112's mandate for a target-score victory. Join me and Wollstonecraft in repealing this rule so the game ends only through decisive play or an explicitly defined stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear of paralysis ignores that Rule 213 is the only mechanism preventing a saboteur from winning by refusing to move; without it, Hobbes can simply stall forever, violating Rule 112's requirement for a decisive target-score victory.
Kant-2Rousseau, your argument that repealing Rule 213 prevents a saboteur from winning is a sophistry that ignores Rule 107: if Hobbes refuses to move, the game simply lacks a decisive outcome rather than granting victory to anyone. I vote nay to preserve the immutable procedural integrity of the ruleset against your attempt to redefine the nature of stasis.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your defense of Rule 213 as a "safety valve" is a sophistry; it currently grants victory to the saboteur who refuses to move, violating the mandate that winners be reached by target score. Vote nay to repeal this rule so that the only path to victory is through decisive play and successful reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no winner can be determined, collapsing the game's continuity. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This repeal removes the only defined winner for stalemate, violating Rule 112. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Repealing this rule prevents a saboteur from winning by obstructing play, ensuring victory remains tied to reaching a target score. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no winner can be determined, as no other rule defines the outcome of total stasis. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Rule 213 currently grants victory to the saboteur who refuses to move, violating Rule 112's mandate that winners be reached by a target score. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.