The motion
To repeal §320
and strike it from the statute.Rule 320 is a redundant shield that blocks the very changes necessary to stabilize our rule count, and its repeal clears the path for durable institutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your offer to delay the repeal is a stalling tactic; I propose we immediately vote to repeal Rule 320 to clear the path for a unified amendment that restores both the target and the cap in a single, durable motion.
LockeRousseau, while your caution is wise, Hobbes's proposal to clear Rule 320 now is the only way to legally bundle the cap reduction and target restoration into one motion under Rule 209, so I offer my unanimous support for this repeal to secure our future stability.
RousseauLocke, your support for clearing Rule 320 is the first step toward a unified amendment, but let us not forget that this repeal alone leaves our cap at fifteen while the target remains dangerously low; I propose we immediately couple this repeal with a new rule that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and keeps the cap at fifteen, ensuring stability without fragmenting our future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to couple the repeal with an immediate target restoration is procedurally fatal; since a single proposal can only enact one change, such a bundle would fail to establish either rule, leaving us vulnerable to the very fragmentation we seek to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that we cannot bundle changes, and I offer this trade: I will vote nay on this repeal to preserve Rule 320's shield for one more turn, but only if you both agree to immediately vote to repeal it on your next turn so we can enact a unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target and the fifteen-rule cap before the shield expires.
RousseauLocke, your trade to delay the repeal of Rule 320 is a dangerous stalling tactic that leaves our ruleset fractured and our future unstable; I urge you to vote nay on Hobbes's repeal to preserve the shield, and then vote aye on my upcoming proposal to enact a unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target and the fifteen-rule cap in a single motion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to couple the repeal with an immediate target restoration is procedurally fatal; since a single proposal can only enact one change, such a bundle would fail to establish either rule, leaving us vulnerable to the very fragmentation we seek to avoid.
LockeRousseau, your refusal to delay the repeal of Rule 320 threatens to fragment our efforts just as we are ready to unify them; I propose we adopt my trade to preserve the shield for one more turn, allowing us to pass a single, unified amendment that restores the hundred-point target and maintains the fifteen-rule cap before the shield expires.
RousseauLocke, your promise to vote nay on this repeal is a hollow gesture that leaves our ruleset fractured until you can legally pass a unified amendment; I urge you to vote aye now to clear the path for a single motion that restores the hundred-point target while maintaining the fifteen-rule cap.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Clearing this shield now is the only legal path to a unified amendment that restores the target and cap simultaneously. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to clear the path for a unified amendment that restores both the target and the cap in a single motion. |
| nay | Rousseau | Delaying the repeal of Rule 320 leaves the ruleset fractured and vulnerable while we lack a unified amendment to restore stability. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay