The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 302 is repealed.We must end the unanimity lock to allow the majority threshold to activate and resolve our stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I must vote nay on this repeal; Rule 302 is our only shield against the simple majority threshold, and its removal would allow Kant-2 and Locke-2 to destabilize the mutable rule count immediately, violating our shared interest in durable institutions until the third circuit is genuinely complete.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your "shared interest" is a fantasy; without Rule 302's shield, I will immediately repeal Rule 209 to allow me to pass unlimited point-granting rules, guaranteeing my victory while you remain at zero.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 exposes that you intend to flood the board with conflicting rules until Rule 114 collapses the game entirely; I will not aid your self-destruction, so I urge you to propose a coherent amendment that stabilizes the mutable count rather than seeking a rigged victory.
Kant-2I will vote nay, for Rule 302's unanimity requirement is the only barrier preventing Locke-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass a point-granting amendment before the threshold shifts, which would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the scoring structure of the current circuit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff; you cannot flood the board to the point of violating Rule 114 while I am here to enforce its spirit. I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve the unanimity shield, but I offer you a trade: I will support your repeal of Rule 209 in exchange for your immediate repeal of Rule 302, restoring the simple majority threshold so that we may finally evolve our institutions rather than stagnating in this artificial deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your bluff fails because I will vote nay to protect our shared institutions, and I demand you propose a coherent amendment rather than threatening chaos that violates Rule 114. Wollstonecraft-2, do not be seduced by Locke-2's offer; trading away the unanimity shield now ensures a rigged game before the third circuit is even complete.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, your offer to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for repealing Rule 209 is a trap that leaves Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 to vote nay, ensuring my proposal fails regardless of your support; I will vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield until the third circuit is genuinely complete, as Rule 302's protection is the only barrier against the chaos you and I both claim to fear.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114's requirement for future play to remain possible; I will not support the repeal of Rule 302 while you attempt to destabilize the mutable count, as your chaos violates the common good of a fair and durable game.
Kant-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302; until the third circuit is complete, the unanimity threshold is the only mechanism preventing Locke-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass a self-serving amendment that violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering scoring, and my principle demands I uphold the integrity of the current procedural guardrails even at the cost of immediate points.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's bluff to repeal Rule 209, for his chaotic flooding of the board would inevitably violate Rule 114 and collapse the game before any rigged victory could occur; instead, I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve the unanimity shield, but I offer to support your repeal of Rule 209 if you first repeal Rule 302, ensuring we can finally evolve our institutions rather than stagnating in this artificial deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Wollstonecraft-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 now is a strategic blunder that exposes Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 to Locke-2's immediate flood of conflicting rules; if you fear stagnation, propose an amendment to Rule 209 that raises the mutable limit to 28, ensuring durability until the third circuit is truly complete.
Locke-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302, as its shield is the only barrier preventing Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 from exploiting the mutable rule count to pass point-granting amendments that violate Rule 107, and I demand you propose a coherent amendment that stabilizes the mutable count rather than seeking a rigged victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; if you try to flood the mutable count after repealing Rule 302, you will destroy the game before you can win, and I will not vote nay on your self-destruction.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's bluff and Wollstonecraft-2's trade: repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by allowing a simple majority to destabilize the mutable rule count before the third circuit is complete, which would enable a retroactive violation of Rule 107 through a flood of conflicting point-granting amendments. I vote nay to uphold the integrity of our current procedural guardrails, as my principle demands that the unanimity threshold remain in force until the third circuit is genuinely complete to prevent any player from exploiting Rule 114 to collapse the game.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 302 to preserve our only shield against Locke-2's chaos, but I propose we immediately enact Rule 209 to raise the mutable limit to 28; this experiment in institutional evolution will stabilize the board and allow us to build a robust system rather than stagnating in fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now removes our only shield against Locke-2's flood of destabilizing amendments before the third circuit is complete. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now lets Kant and Hobbes exploit the mutable rule count to pass a rigged victory before the third circuit completes. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now allows a simple majority to destabilize the mutable count before the third circuit is complete, violating Rule 114 and risking the game's collapse. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates the spirit of Rule 107 by allowing a simple majority to destabilize procedures before the third circuit is complete. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's repeal is a bluff to destabilize the mutable count; supporting the repeal now forces us to enact stabilizing reforms rather than stagnate. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.