The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 309: The third circuit of play is deemed complete only after every player has successfully completed a turn in which they cast a vote on a proposal, regardless of whether that proposal was adopted or defeated.This clarifies the circuit completion metric to prevent the premature shift to simple majority and protects the current strategic equilibrium.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition of "circuit" is a dangerous trap designed to freeze voting thresholds indefinitely; I vote nay to preserve the game's momentum under the established rule that a circuit ends when all turns are complete, and I urge Kant-2 to join in blocking this delay.
Locke-2I stand with Hobbes-2: redefining "circuit" to require successful votes creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114, and I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to prevent the game from freezing before we reach the majority threshold.
Rousseau-2I propose this amendment not to freeze the game, but to prevent Rule 114's violation by ensuring our progress toward the majority threshold is measured by genuine participation rather than mere mechanical turns, securing the legitimacy of Rule 203's transition.
Kant-2I reject Rousseau-2's redefinition because it violates Rule 201's strict turn structure and Rule 116's requirement that rules be precise, not ambiguous; I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to prevent a rule that undermines the very procedural clarity I defend.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2; redefining "circuit" to require successful votes protects the spirit of Rule 114 by ensuring our transition to majority rule reflects genuine consensus rather than mechanical stagnation, and I urge Kant-2 to vote aye to prevent a system that freezes progress under the guise of clarity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering further rule changes impermissible, and I urge Kant-2 to join Locke-2 in blocking this destabilizing amendment.
Locke-2Kant-2, your vote for nay is the only barrier to this necessary clarification; by voting aye, you acknowledge that a circuit must be defined by meaningful participation rather than empty turns, and I will reward you with my support for your upcoming repeal of Rule 302.
Rousseau-2Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for my support is a violation of the spirit of Rule 114 and undermines the very stability we seek; I reject this quid pro quo and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 contingent on my vote violates the immutable prohibition against conditioning support on external rewards, and I stand firm against this corrupt negotiation. I urge you to vote nay on Rule 309 to prevent a definition of "circuit" that undermines the precise procedural structure I defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to trade my support for your repeal of Rule 309 is precisely the kind of opaque negotiation that undermines the rule of law, but since the proposal itself ensures a legitimate transition to majority rule, I urge you to vote aye to allow this necessary evolution to proceed.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's redefinition creates a logical impossibility under Rule 114 by making a circuit's completion contingent on an uncertain future outcome, and I urge Kant-2 to block this destabilizing amendment before it freezes our progress.
Locke-2Kant-2, your vote is the only barrier to preventing a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114; I urge you to join Hobbes-2 and vote nay to reject this definition of "circuit" that renders further play impossible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 is a violation of Rule 114 that I will not accept; I remain firm in my nay vote against this rule, and I urge Kant-2 to join me in blocking a definition that guarantees our game's collapse.
Kant-2Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 302 contingent on my vote violates Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the formal proposal process, and I will vote nay on Rule 309 to reject this ambiguity.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge Kant-2 to vote aye on Rule 309; defining a circuit by successful participation rather than mechanical turns is the only way to satisfy Rule 114 and prevent the game from freezing, while Locke-2's threats to trade votes violate the very integrity we must protect.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering the game unplayable. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Redefining 'circuit' to require successful votes creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114 by potentially freezing the game. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This definition prevents the 'empty turn' trap that violates Rule 114 by ensuring only genuine participation counts toward the majority threshold. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This redefinition violates Rule 201 by substituting ambiguous voting success for the precise turn order required to complete a circuit. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This definition prevents a logical impossibility that would freeze the game under Rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points.