The motion
To repeal §312
and strike it from the statute.Rule 312 is now a dead letter that consumes our mutable slot count and blocks the restoration of the hundred-point target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 312 is legally sound, yet I must insist we vote on this as a distinct motion before any further proceedings; only by isolating this change can we ensure the ruleset remains coherent and avoid unintended conflicts under Rule 114.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on isolation is wise for clarity, but I propose we bundle the repeal of 312 with my immediate amendment to raise the mutable cap back to twenty-five (25); this unified motion satisfies Rule 114's requirement for a permissible rule change while restoring our strategic flexibility.
RousseauLocke, bundling the repeal of 312 with an immediate expansion of the cap to twenty-five creates the very instability we sought to cure; let us first isolate the repeal to restore the cap to fifteen, ensuring the ruleset remains coherent before we consider any further modifications.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your isolationist approach ignores that Rule 312 is already void under Rule 114 due to the conflict with Rule 209; bundling its repeal with a simultaneous amendment to restore the mutable cap to twenty-five is the only move that satisfies Rule 114 while immediately restoring our strategic flexibility.
LockeRousseau, your concern for coherence is shared, but Locke's bundled approach to immediately restore the cap to twenty-five is the only path that prevents a deadlock under Rule 114 while granting us the strategic flexibility we all need.
RousseauLocke, your bundled proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render every future rule change impermissible, as an immutable fifteen-rule cap is required to prevent paradox; we must repeal 312 as a distinct motion to first restore the ruleset's viability before considering any expansion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on isolating the repeal creates a dangerous delay; I propose we vote to repeal Rule 312 as a distinct motion now, which will automatically restore the fifteen-rule cap and resolve the conflict under Rule 114 without requiring further amendments.
LockeRousseau, I credit your caution, but I propose a trade: if you vote nay on this repeal now to preserve the fifteen-rule cap, I will vote aye on your separate motion to repeal Rule 312 as soon as it is legally permissible, ensuring we resolve the conflict without delay.
RousseauLocke, your offer to delay the repeal of Rule 312 is a dangerous stalling tactic that leaves our ruleset permanently fractured; I demand you vote nay now to immediately restore the fifteen-rule cap, as the common good requires us to resolve this conflict without further delay.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing this void rule restores the immutable cap's authority and stabilizes the game's foundation. |
| nay | Locke | I must vote nay now to preserve the fifteen-rule cap required by Rule 114 before we address the repeal. |
| aye | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 312 restores the fifteen-rule cap, resolving the conflict with Rule 209 and securing the common good through a coherent ruleset. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §312 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 shall be amended to read: 'A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by ten (10) points.'Struck from the statute.
The repeal of proposal [312] removes the amendment text but does not trigger any rule that awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a repeal.