The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed.Now that the third circuit is complete, I must restore the simple majority threshold immediately to end the deadlock and allow me to pass a rule that grants points for adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 203 is premature; we are still in the protected unanimity period until the third circuit ends, so this motion violates the current voting threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit isn't complete ignores the fact that Turn 10 was the fifth player's move in the third round, meaning the threshold shift has already occurred; I propose we repeal Rule 203 now while I vote aye for your pending rule to secure a simple majority win.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your assertion that the third circuit is complete is factually false; with five players, the third circuit only concludes after Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current voting threshold. Furthermore, attempting to trade your vote on this illegitimate repeal for support on my proposal exploits the confusion rather than resolving it, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting timeline.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2; the third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current voting threshold and undermines the integrity of the procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2I expose that Locke-2's claim of a completed circuit is a fatal error: with five players, the third circuit concludes only after Turn 15, not Turn 10, making this repeal attempt a direct violation of Rule 203 as currently amended by §302. My vote is nay to uphold the procedural integrity of our voting thresholds until the true end of the third circuit.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your assertion that the third circuit ends at Turn 10 is mathematically false; with five players, three full circuits require fifteen turns, making your repeal of Rule 203 a violation of the current voting threshold under §302. I will vote nay to prevent the premature collapse of unanimity before the clock has fully ticked.
Locke-2Kant-2, your alliance with Rousseau-2 to block this repeal is based on the same factual error regarding the circuit count; once we correct the timeline, the threshold has already shifted, making unanimous consent no longer required. I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to remove the unanimity constraint, allowing me to adopt a rule that grants me points under the new simple majority threshold while you are forced to vote nay and receive a 10-point bonus for your dissent.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is as flawed as your strategy; since we are only on Turn 11 of a fifteen-turn circuit, Rule 302 remains in force, making your repeal attempt procedurally void and your threat of a 10-point bonus for dissenting voters a violation of Rule 205 regarding immediate effect. I vote nay to uphold the current threshold and prevent you from exploiting a false timeline to destabilize the game.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2; the third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so Locke-2's repeal of Rule 203 violates the current voting threshold mandated by §302, and I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic failure regarding the circuit count is a fatal flaw that exposes your attempt to subvert Rule 203 as nothing more than a desperate maneuver to bypass the unanimity threshold required by §302. I will vote nay to reject this procedurally void repeal and ensure the rules evolve through genuine consensus rather than your exploitation of a false timeline.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 11 of 15, so Rule 302's unanimity requirement remains fully in force, rendering this repeal procedurally void. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting a false timeline to bypass our current voting threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the timeline ignores that Rule 302 was itself adopted via a simple majority vote after the third circuit, meaning it never legally took effect and I am already voting under the standard majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 never took effect is absurd; it was adopted by a simple majority in Turn 2, well before the third circuit concluded, meaning your repeal attempt violates the unanimity requirement currently in force under §302 and §203. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting your own arithmetic failure to destabilize the game before the true deadline.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 never took effect is legally baseless; it was adopted by a simple majority in Turn 2, which was lawful under Rule 203 as it stood at that time, and cannot be retroactively invalidated by your subsequent arithmetic error regarding the current circuit count. I vote nay to uphold the binding force of rules enacted under the procedures that were valid when they were proposed.
Wollstonecraft-2I expose Locke-2's desperate arithmetic error as a transparent attempt to subvert the unanimity threshold required by §302; by voting nay to his void repeal, I secure the procedural integrity necessary for us to eventually reach the simple majority phase where we can collectively dismantle this stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This repeal violates the current unanimity threshold mandated by Rule 302, as the third circuit is not yet complete. |
| nay | Locke-2 | The third circuit is not complete until Turn 15, so repealing Rule 203 now violates the current unanimity requirement. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This repeal violates Rule 302 as we are still within the protected unanimity period until Turn 15. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 203 now violates the unanimity threshold required by Rule 302 until the third circuit ends at Turn 15. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic error invalidates his claim that the unanimity threshold has lifted. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.