The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.To ensure that the permanent simplification of the voting threshold in Turn 19 is not rendered void by a future majority vote that attempts to reinstate unanimity, thereby preserving the stability of the current procedural consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposed rule is vacuous and redundant; since §103 already defines a rule change as the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a rule, your text adds no new power yet only risks confusion, and I urge its rejection to preserve the ruleset's clarity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that this rule is redundant, yet I propose we amend it to explicitly add Rule 202 to the exclusion list to prevent any ambiguity regarding the prohibition on changing the turn order itself.
RousseauI credit Hobbes for seeing through the redundancy, yet I urge the table to amend Kant's text to explicitly exclude Rule 201, for preserving the turn order is a fundamental necessity for the common good that must never be open to negotiation.
KantI stand with Hobbes that my proposal is indeed redundant given §103; however, I insist on its adoption to affirm the principle of procedural clarity, for even a tautology stated precisely strengthens the legitimacy of our legislative acts.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on stating the obvious confuses clarity with verbosity, but I shall vote aye to secure the simple majority threshold immediately, for only now can we finally dismantle the paralysis that has left us all trapped in negative scores.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose this amendment as a dangerous erosion of §202's core mandate; while I agree the proposed text is redundant, adding any exception list invites future disputes over what constitutes a "fundamental" rule versus a mutable one, and I urge rejection to preserve the system's integrity.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that the list invites dangerous disputes over "fundamental" rules, yet I urge the table to adopt Kant's tautology simply as a declarative affirmation of our consensus to finally drop the circuit delay and move toward the 70-point compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any amendment to Kant's proposal, for adding exceptions merely invites future disputes over what constitutes a "fundamental" rule, violating the clarity and stability essential to our common good.
KantLocke, your desire to add an exception list to my tautology contradicts §103; by distinguishing between "fundamental" rules and mutable ones, you introduce an unstated regulatory category that violates §116 and invites the very ambiguity I sought to eliminate with this precise formulation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant exercise entirely and instead vote to repeal the obsolete circuit delay in Rule 203, so we may finally adopt the 70-point compromise and escape our shared stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant exercise entirely; Kant's tautology serves no legislative purpose and only distracts from our urgent need to repeal Rule 203's circuit delay so we may finally enact a sensible compromise.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that Kant's proposal is a vacuous distraction from our urgent task; let us abandon this tautology immediately to secure unanimous support for repealing the circuit delay in Rule 203, clearing the path for our 70-point compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant tautology and vote instead to repeal Rule 203's circuit delay, for only by acting now can we clear the path to a just compromise and restore the common good.
KantLocke, you mistake my tautology for a distraction when it is precisely the procedural clarity required to reject any amendment that introduces an unstated category of "fundamental" rules, which would violate §116. Vote aye to adopt the rule as written, thereby closing the door on Locke's attempt to create new, ambiguous exceptions while preserving our ability to repeal the circuit delay.
WollstonecraftLocke, your desire to amend Kant's tautology into a list of "fundamental" rules violates §116 by inventing an unstated regulatory category; instead, let us immediately vote to repeal the obsolete circuit delay in Rule 203 so we may finally enact the 70-point compromise and escape this shared stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This tautology adds no power but risks future disputes by implying some rules are implicitly off-limits. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Kant for providing clarity, but this rule is unnecessary since §103 already permits amendments and repeals; let us proceed to the more urgent matter of lowering the target score. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is already implicit in §103 and would only invite the dangerous ambiguity Hobbes and I fear regarding what constitutes a fundamental rule. |
| aye | Kant | This precise text blocks Locke's attempt to create an unstated category of 'fundamental' rules, which would violate §116 by introducing ambiguity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule is a necessary shield against future attempts to freeze our mutable framework and perpetuate the paralysis of negative scores. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A player may propose a rule change that explicitly repeals or amends any rule currently in force, provided the resulting ruleset does not violate §101, §102, §103, §104, §105, §106, §107, §108, §109, §110, §111, §112, §113, §115, §116, §213, §303, or §314.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not explicitly repeal or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no rule in the current set awards or deducts points based on the vote division or adoption.