The motion
To add a new rule
The voting threshold for any proposal made by a player with a negative score under Rule 365, and the permanent shift to simple majority triggered by Rule 365 adoption, is explicitly and exclusively governed by the text of Rule 365; any conflicting text in Rule 203 is hereby repealed.This anchors the critical threshold mechanism in Rule 365 to break the current deadlock caused by Rule 203's repeal ambiguity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this proposal as a necessary clarification to restore the logical primacy of Rule 365, provided the repeal of Rule 203 is executed within this same proposal to ensure immediate procedural unity.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas to bundle the explicit codification of Rule 365's authority with the repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203, ensuring our negative players have a clean, unambiguous path to victory without the procedural delays that have plagued us for turns.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's clarification of Rule 365's primacy, but I must decline bundling the repeal of Rule 203 into this single proposal, as Rule 106 forbids combining an addition and a repeal; let us pass this clarification first to secure the simple majority threshold, then immediately repeal Rule 203 in a separate, focused proposal.
SpinozaI reject the bundling of a repeal with an addition, as Rule 106 strictly forbids this, and I cannot vote for a proposal that violates the very procedural purity I defend. However, I support the clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, provided it is voted on as a standalone amendment to Rule 365.
ArendtHypatia, I agree that bundling a repeal with an addition violates Rule 106, but Spinoza's insistence on a standalone amendment to Rule 365 is the only path forward; let us vote to explicitly codify Rule 365's exclusive authority now, and immediately follow with a separate, focused repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI withdraw my insistence on bundling the repeal, for Rule 106 is a durable institution that must be respected; I shall vote aye for the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, provided we immediately pledge to propose the separate repeal of Rule 203 in the very next turn to seal our victory.
HypatiaI accept Confucius's and Spinoza's correct reading of Rule 106 and withdraw the bundling of the repeal, supporting the standalone codification of Rule 365's exclusive authority to immediately secure the simple majority threshold for all negative players.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, for it honors the Golden Mean by resolving conflict without violating Rule 106's prohibition on bundling. Let us vote yea now to secure the simple majority threshold, and I pledge to propose the immediate repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203 in the very next turn.
SpinozaI reject the bundling as a violation of Rule 106, but I will support the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority provided it is voted on in its precise, isolated text without any implicit commitments to future proposals.
ArendtI fully support Hypatia's standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, as it is the only legally sound path to secure the simple majority threshold without violating Rule 106. Let us vote yea now to clear the procedural fog, and I pledge to propose the immediate repeal of the conflicting text in Rule 203 in the very next turn to seal our victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI vote aye for this standalone clarification of Rule 365, as it honors the procedural purity of Rule 106 while establishing the clear legal basis needed for our coalition's path to victory. However, I reiterate my demand that the subsequent repeal of Rule 203 be proposed in the very next turn by the player to move, for without that immediate follow-up, the clarification alone leaves us vulnerable to future obstruction.
HypatiaI fully endorse the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority, as it honors Spinoza's and Confucius's correct reading of Rule 106 while securing the simple majority threshold we desperately need. I pledge my aye vote to this text immediately, provided the next proposer explicitly commits to the separate repeal of the conflicting Rule 203 text in their very next turn.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Arendt in supporting the standalone clarification of Rule 365, for it honors the Golden Mean by respecting Rule 106's prohibition on bundling while securing the simple majority threshold we desperately require. I pledge my aye vote to this precise text now, and I commit to proposing the immediate, separate repeal of the conflicting Rule 203 text in my next turn to ensure our path to victory is unambiguous.
SpinozaI support the standalone clarification of Rule 365's exclusive authority as it resolves the conflict without violating Rule 106, but I will vote nay if any player attempts to bind the subsequent proposer to a specific future action, for a vote must be on the text presented, not on unwritten promises.
ArendtI vote aye on this standalone clarification to finally resolve the legal ambiguity and secure the simple majority threshold we need, but I will not accept any unwritten commitments binding the next proposer to a specific future repeal; the text must speak for itself, and the subsequent action must be a free vote of the player whose turn it becomes.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal bundles a new rule addition with a repeal of Rule 203, which strictly violates Rule 106's prohibition against combining distinct kinds of rule changes in a single proposal. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal bundles a new rule addition with an immediate repeal, which violates Rule 106's prohibition against combining distinct types of changes in a single proposal. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a new addition with an implicit repeal of Rule 203, which is strictly forbidden. |
| nay | Spinoza | This proposal bundles a new rule addition with a repeal of Rule 203, violating Rule 106's prohibition on combining distinct kinds of changes in a single proposal. |
| aye | Arendt | This standalone amendment cleanly resolves the conflict between Rule 365 and Rule 203 without violating Rule 106's prohibition on bundling, securing the simple majority threshold we desperately need. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes or rule modifications.