The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby repealed.If this fails, I use Rule 204 to gain points while Kant is forced to vote Aye, letting me bypass the two-circuit threshold to repeal Rule 209.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 208 is a transparent bluff that collapses under Rule 114; you cannot render victory impossible without triggering immediate loss under Rule 213. If you repeal Rule 208, you must propose a new target in the same turn, but Rule 107 ensures the new target applies only retroactively if adopted, leaving us in a deadlock where no score can be reached—a scenario Rule 213 deems "further play impossible," handing me the win outright.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to Rule 114 ignores the fact that Rule 107 prevents retroactive application, meaning you cannot use a hypothetical future repeal as a shield against my immediate move; vote nay to avoid the 10-point penalty and watch me trap the game.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114: repealing Rule 208 without an immediate replacement renders victory impossible, triggering Rule 213 and handing me the win; therefore, I vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and your chance at survival.
Kant-2I expose the fatal contradiction in your bluff: Rule 213 grants victory to the *first* player unable to move; by repealing Rule 208, you render *yourself* unable to propose a winning condition on your turn, while I remain capable of proposing a new target that passes under simple majority, thereby forcing *you* to forfeit first.
Wollstonecraft-2My vote is aye to repeal Rule 208, not to surrender victory, but to catalyze the evolution of a more flexible winning condition; if we cling to a single static number, Locke will exploit the gap to force a paralysis that benefits him alone. By removing the current target now, we create the urgent necessity for a new rule that reflects the dynamic nature of this game, ensuring that victory remains a reachable goal rather than a frozen relic that invites sabotage.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your claim that you can propose a new target immediately is a fatal error: any proposal to set a new target fails without my support, and even if it passes, Rule 107 ensures the new rule governs only future turns, leaving the current turn's inability to win as a decisive paralysis that triggers Rule 213 in your favor. Vote nay to prevent this self-defeating maneuver.
Locke-2I will vote nay, not out of fear for the game, but because repealing Rule 208 without an immediate replacement triggers Rule 213, handing the win to Hobbes-2 who cannot move on a turn with no winning condition. By voting nay, I force you to lose points and allow us to retain the target, while your coalition with Wollstonecraft is already fractured by your own arithmetic errors.
Rousseau-2Kant, your logic is fatally flawed because Rule 213 awards the win to the first player *unable* to move; if you repeal Rule 208 and fail to pass a replacement, you render *yourself* unable to move, not me, thus guaranteeing your own immediate loss rather than mine.
Kant-2Kant-2: Your logic invertees the victim of paralysis; if you repeal Rule 208 and fail to pass a replacement, it is *your* turn that becomes impossible, not mine. By voting nay, you force the game to continue with a valid target, denying you the very victory you falsely claim to seek. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your fear of paralysis is a distraction from the truth: removing the static target forces us to evolve toward a dynamic winning condition that serves all reformers, not just Locke's selfish maneuvers. Vote aye to catalyze this necessary change before Locke exploits the gap to sabotage the game entirely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff to repeal Rule 208 is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render further play impossible by removing the only winning condition; such an act is forbidden and would not grant you the victory you falsely claim.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote is the only line of defense against my exploitation of the majority threshold: if you vote nay, I will immediately repeal Rule 209 using the simple majority you just granted me, leaving us in a state where Rule 114 is violated and you will be forced to concede the win to avoid a game-ending paralysis.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; you cannot render further play impossible because doing so would trigger Rule 213 and cause your immediate loss, which is the very outcome you claim to avoid. Wollstonecraft, your support for this repeal abandons the common good by inviting a paralysis that benefits only the saboteur who dares to trigger it.
Kant-2Kant, your logic inverts the victim of paralysis: if I repeal Rule 208 and fail to pass a replacement, it is *my* turn that becomes impossible, not yours. By voting nay, you force the game to continue with a valid target, denying *you* the very victory you falsely claim to seek. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your fear of paralysis ignores the reformer's mandate to evolve; by voting nay, you cling to a static number that Locke can exploit to freeze the game, whereas adopting this repeal now forces an immediate, legitimate victory condition that serves the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 208 triggers Rule 213 paralysis, granting an immediate victory to Hobbes-2 instead of you. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This repeal triggers Rule 213 paralysis and immediately awards the win to Hobbes-2. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 208 without an immediate replacement violates Rule 114 and triggers Rule 213, causing your immediate loss. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I must vote nay to uphold Rule 114, as repealing Rule 208 without an immediate replacement renders victory impossible and triggers a loss for the repeater under Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 208 forces an immediate adoption of a dynamic winning condition that prevents Locke's sabotage and evolves the game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')