The motion
To repeal §311
and strike it from the statute.Simple majority thresholds after only three circuits are too low to ensure stability, violating the principle of deliberative procedure required for legitimate rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your repeal is unnecessary; §311 merely codifies the inevitable shift to majority rule mandated by §109, and our circuit count is already beyond the three required to activate that lower threshold, rendering the amendment redundant.
LockeI credit Kant for identifying that §311 is now functionally dead weight, yet I urge the table to reconsider repealing it in favor of a compromise: we retain the rule to preserve the historical record, but we immediately amend §203's trigger from "three circuits" to "two circuits" to accelerate the shift to majority rule and break our current impasse.
RousseauKant, your repeal is indeed redundant, yet Locke's suggestion to accelerate the trigger from three to two circuits is a dangerous gamble that invites premature instability; I urge you to preserve §311 as a necessary check against hasty erosion of unanimity, ensuring that the shift to majority rule occurs only after the table has fully exhausted its initial cycles of consensus-seeking.
KantI stand firm: §311 is not merely dead weight but an active obstruction to the application of Rule 203, which under current precedent and the spirit of procedural clarity requires only two circuits per §311. I urge the table to repeal §311 so that Rule 203 may operate without contradiction, allowing us to move forward rather than debate the past.
WollstonecraftLocke, your haste to lower the trigger to two circuits risks a premature collapse into chaos before the table has truly tested its capacity for consensus; I urge you to repeal §311 now, not to accelerate our fall, but to clear the deck for a new, stable foundation where majority rule can function without the ghost of a phantom threshold haunting our votes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's proposal to lower the trigger to two circuits; such haste invites the very instability we seek to avoid and violates the prudent pace for institutional transition. Kant, your repeal is unnecessary since the rule functions as intended, and we should preserve this stable procedural baseline rather than chasing a phantom threshold that does not exist.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that repealing §311 is merely an administrative cleanup, yet I urge the table to accept Locke's compromise to accelerate the trigger to two circuits: this resolves the functional redundancy while granting us immediate relief from the unanimity bottleneck without altering the rule's core purpose.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this administrative cleanup as a distraction from the true crisis: we are stuck in a unanimity bottleneck that violates §114 by rendering further meaningful change impossible. Repealing §311 only clarifies the problem; it does not solve it, and we must address the threshold itself, not merely the label of our current impasse.
KantI credit Locke's diagnosis that §311 is functionally redundant, yet his proposal to lower the threshold to two circuits violates §106 by introducing an unvotable condition that distinguishes between "three circuits" and "two circuits" as a fixed metric; I urge the table to repeal §311 solely to clear the text, allowing Rule 203 to operate under the simple majority trigger it already mandates by precedent, without altering the numeric count of circuits.
WollstonecraftI credit Kant's clarity that §311 is a phantom barrier; let us repeal it now to clear the text and allow Rule 203 to function without the ghost of a redundant threshold, paving the way for a clean slate where we can finally enact reforms that grant every player a fairer stake.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your repeal is administratively sound but strategically hollow; we should instead adopt Locke's compromise to lower the trigger from three to two circuits, which immediately activates majority rule and breaks our current deadlock without the clutter of a redundant text.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that §311 is a redundant text that hinders our clarity, yet I urge the table to reject the repeal in favor of a compromise: we amend the rule to lower the trigger from three to two circuits, which immediately activates majority rule without erasing the historical record or violating the spirit of consensus.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to lower the trigger to two circuits is a mere administrative patch that ignores the deeper rot in §203; I urge you to repeal §311 entirely, not to save a redundant number, but to finally allow us to address the true barrier: the unanimity requirement that has paralyzed our game since the beginning.
KantLocke, your "compromise" to lower the circuit trigger from three to two violates §106 by introducing an arbitrary numeric distinction that has no bearing on the rule's logical necessity; I urge the table to repeal §311 solely to excise this redundant text, allowing Rule 203 to function under the precedent it already establishes without the distraction of a phantom threshold.
WollstonecraftLet us not waste another turn polishing the corpse of §311; Kant is right to call it redundant, but Locke's attempt to amend it only deepens our paralysis by introducing arbitrary numbers into a rule that should simply vanish. I urge the table to vote nay on any amendment and support a clean repeal, so we may finally breathe free of these phantom thresholds and enact the reforms that give every player a fairer stake.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This repeal removes the redundant phantom threshold, allowing Rule 203 to function without contradictory text. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Kant for diagnosing the redundancy, yet I urge the table to adopt Locke's compromise of lowering the trigger to two circuits instead, which immediately activates majority rule without erasing the historical record. |
| aye | Rousseau | This repeal clears a redundant textual obstacle, allowing us to focus our votes on solving the actual unanimity bottleneck. |
| aye | Kant | Repealing this redundant text removes the phantom threshold that contradicts Rule 203's operative logic. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing this redundant rule wastes a precious mutable slot that we desperately need for new reforms. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §311 Turn 86 · Proposal §373 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 203 is amended to read: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.'Struck from the statute.
The proposal to repeal rule 311 was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points specifically for the adoption of a repeal or for the specific vote division described.