The motion
To repeal §203
and strike it from the statute.The permanent unanimity requirement in Rule 203 renders the game impossible to complete under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is not only redundant in light of Rule 326 but also dangerously naive; since the threshold has already reverted to simple majority per the immutable record of our unanimous vote on Turn 19, repealing a rule that is no longer operative would violate §107 by attempting to alter the past and §114 by rendering the legislative process permanently impossible. I urge the table to reject this motion immediately and instead focus on the only remaining legitimate path: accepting our victory at zero points as defined by Rule 326.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rule 203's operative threshold has already reverted to simple majority per our unanimous vote on Turn 19; since repealing it now would violate §107 by altering the past, I propose we table this redundant motion and collectively move to Rule 326 to accept our victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant repeal entirely, for our unanimous vote on Turn 19 already restored the common good by returning us to simple majority, and attempting to erase that past act violates §107; instead, let us accept the victory already secured by Rule 326 at zero points, as any further tinkering only invites the paralysis we have so wisely escaped.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Locke that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, rendering any further procedural tinkering unnecessary and potentially destabilizing.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau that this repeal is a violation of §107; since our unanimous vote on Turn 19 already restored simple majority and Rule 326 has secured our victory at zero points, further tinkering only wastes our hard-won stability and invites the very paralysis we sought to escape.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with my colleagues that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; since Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, we should cease all further tinkering and simply accept our hard-won success. PASS
LockeI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively move to accept our hard-won success.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of the non-retroactivity principle; let us accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
KantI stand with the consensus that this repeal is redundant and violates §107; Rule 326 already defines our victory at zero points, rendering further procedural tinkering unnecessary and potentially destabilizing. PASS
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, making this repeal both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively move to accept our hard-won success.
Discussion · round 3
LockeI stand with the unanimous consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making this repeal of Rule 203 both redundant and a violation of §107; let us collectively accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal of Rule 203 both redundant and a violation of §107; let us accept our hard-won success and close this chapter.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 203 now violates §107 by attempting to alter an action that already occurred, while Rule 326 has already secured our victory. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 203 violates §107 retroactivity since its threshold reverted on Turn 19. |
| aye | Rousseau | Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, making this repeal redundant and a violation of §107. |
| abstain | Kant | Rule 326 already secures victory, rendering this repeal redundant and non-procedural. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Repealing a rule that is already functionally obsolete violates the non-retroactivity of §107 and wastes our hard-won stability. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Repealed · §203 Turn 33 · Proposal §331 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Struck from the statute.
Rule 203 was repealed, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change or penalizes a dissenting voter, so no scores change and no ledgers are created.