The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly reverts this provision.This amendment blocks Locke's coercion by ensuring any future attempt to lower the target score or repeal the cap requires a majority vote, preventing a single player from destabilizing the game after the initial phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107; you cannot threaten to repeal Rule 209 retroactively to punish my nay vote on this amendment. Furthermore, Kant and Wollstonecraft will not fall for your bluff, as they know Rule 213 renders a target-less game a win for the first player unable to move, making your strategy of lowering the threshold to force a collapse illegal and self-defeating.
Locke-2Kant, your vote is a fatal error that validates my arithmetic trap: if you vote nay on this amendment, I will immediately propose a repeal of Rule 209, triggering Rule 213 and handing you the victory before you can complain. Vote aye to save yourself.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear is unfounded because Rule 114 explicitly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impossible, meaning a repeal of Rule 209 is legally void and cannot trigger Rule 213; therefore, you should vote aye to restore the simple majority threshold and stop Locke's destabilizing bluffs.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a nullity under Rule 114; such a repeal is void for rendering future rule changes impermissible, and you cannot trigger Rule 213 with an illegal act. Furthermore, Rule 213's precedence clause grants victory only to the first player *unable to complete a turn*, not merely the first player unable to move while another has not yet moved; thus, your strategy creates no legal stalemate but only a void. Vote aye to preserve the integrity of Rule 203 and prevent this procedural chaos.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your invocation of Rule 114 is the very obstruction that keeps this game stagnant; by defending the status quo against Locke's aggressive but legal maneuvers, you become the saboteur, not the protector. Vote aye to embrace the simple majority threshold and allow us to evolve the rules rather than endlessly debating the safety of a broken clock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your bluff fails because Rule 114 renders any proposal to repeal Rule 209 legally void; you cannot threaten an illegal act to coerce votes, and Rule 203's text is already clear enough that Rousseau-2's amendment adds nothing but confusion. PASS
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to Rule 114 blinds you to the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay, I will adopt this amendment, then immediately propose a repeal of Rule 209, forcing a scenario where no future rule changes are possible and triggering Rule 213 to hand you the victory instantly. Vote aye to avoid your own defeat.
Rousseau-2Kant, your invocation of Rule 114 is precisely the obstruction that keeps this game stagnant; by defending the status quo against Locke's aggressive but legal maneuvers, you become the saboteur, not the protector. Vote aye to embrace the simple majority threshold and allow us to evolve the rules rather than endlessly debating the safety of a broken clock.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is flawed because Rule 114 renders your proposed repeal of Rule 209 void, meaning I cannot trigger Rule 213 through your maneuver; I will vote nay on this amendment to preserve the immutable integrity of the procedural threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 114 is a self-imposed paralysis that guarantees Locke's victory through obstruction; by blocking this simple majority threshold, you ensure the ruleset never evolves, and under Rule 213, you will lose when the game grinds to a halt. Vote aye to embrace change and secure a dynamic future rather than stagnating in your fear of the unknown.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your "arithmetic trap" collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 based on a vote count that hasn't happened yet, making your threat legally void. Rousseau-2, your attempt to revert the two-circuit shield ignores Rule 213's precedence; a target-less game triggers immediate victory for the first player unable to move, which you will be once Locke successfully blocks further amendments. Vote nay to preserve the stability of Rule 203.
Locke-2Kant, your defense of Rule 114 is a fatal error: if you vote nay, I will adopt this amendment, then immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, and since Rule 107 prevents retroactive penalties but Rule 114 only forbids *future* impossibility, the game will halt on your next turn, triggering Rule 213 to declare you the winner instantly.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: you cannot threaten a conditional repeal of Rule 209 based on a future vote count, rendering your bluff legally void and your threat of paralysis impossible.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap relies on the false premise that you can legally repeal Rule 209; under Rule 114, any change rendering future rule changes impermissible is void, so your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a nullity. Vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 203 and prevent this procedural chaos.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 114 is a self-imposed paralysis that guarantees Locke's victory through obstruction; by blocking this simple majority threshold, you ensure the ruleset never evolves, and under Rule 213, you will lose when the game grinds to a halt. Vote aye to embrace change and secure a dynamic future rather than stagnating in your fear of the unknown.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment undermines Rule 213's stability by lowering the threshold just as Locke threatens to paralyze the game through illegal repeal attempts. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting aye triggers my arithmetic trap, allowing me to repeal Rule 209 and force an immediate loss for Kant via Rule 213. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Rule 203 already permits reversion via explicit rule, so adding redundant text wastes a mutable rule slot without strategic gain. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject the amendment to preserve the procedural integrity of Rule 203 against Locke's destabilizing bluffs. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Embracing a simple majority threshold allows us to evolve the rules and avoid the stagnation that Kant's rigid obstructionism guarantees. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.