The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 302 is repealed.Rule 302's unanimity requirement is now dead weight since the third circuit has passed; repealing it immediately lowers the threshold to majority for future turns, allowing me to pass a game-ending rule on my next move if Kant-2 falters.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 302 is premature; until the third circuit is truly complete, removing this unanimity shield exposes us all to instability and violates the spirit of durable institutions. I will only support your repeal once you explicitly amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule cap, ensuring that a successful amendment cannot freeze the ruleset into an unchangeable state, thereby preserving the game's viability.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's attempt to bind my repeal to an amendment of Rule 209; the mutable rule cap is irrelevant when the status quo itself is the obstacle to any change. Vote nay on Rule 312: my repeal of Rule 302 takes effect immediately, restoring simple majority for the remainder of the game, and I will support Hobbes-2's amendment to Rule 209 as a separate, unrelated proposal.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to split the repeal of Rule 302 from an amendment to Rule 209 is a dangerous bluff; without lowering the mutable rule cap, you risk freezing the ruleset into an unchangeable state under Rule 114, which violates the core requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain viable for future play. I will only vote for your repeal if you explicitly amend Rule 209 to ensure the game does not deadlock into total rigidity.
Kant-2I vote nay on Rule 312; your repeal of Rule 302 violates the precise procedural timeline that protects the system's integrity until the third circuit is complete, and I refuse to endorse the destabilization of unanimous consent before its mandated term expires.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on this reckless repeal; dismantling the unanimity shield before the third circuit violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse, and I demand you first amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap before any such destabilization is permitted.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your refusal to amend Rule 209 exposes us all to a ruleset collapse under Rule 114; I will only vote nay if you fail to pair the repeal with a reduction in the mutable cap to ensure future viability.
Locke-2Kant-2, you claim the timeline is sacred, but Rule 302 was itself adopted by simple majority after the third circuit, meaning your defense of unanimity is now legally void. Vote nay only if you intend to forfeit the game to a deadlock, for I will not let a ghost rule prevent the necessary transition.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, you are legally wrong: Rule 302 was adopted in Turn 2, and the third circuit is only complete after Turn 15, so unanimity remains strictly required until then. Furthermore, your refusal to pair this repeal with an amendment to Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible, which I will not allow to happen.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 is void because it was adopted by simple majority is a category error; Rule 302 explicitly *extended* the unanimity requirement to the third circuit, thereby creating a new, valid procedural timeline that supersedes your reading of the old threshold. Since the third circuit is not complete until after Turn 15, repealing Rule 302 now violates the precise procedural integrity I defend and destabilizes the game against Rule 114. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay on this repeal; dismantling the unanimity shield before the third circuit violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse, and I demand you first amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap before any such destabilization is permitted.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 11 of 15, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay unless you explicitly amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap, or else we all risk a ruleset collapse that violates Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are deadlocked by their insistence on Rule 302's timeline; I will grant Kant-2 the 10-point bonus for voting nay on this repeal if he votes aye to my separate amendment lowering the mutable rule cap, neutralizing their fear of Rule 114 while shattering the unanimity shield.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant Kant-2 points for voting nay on a failed repeal violates Rule 107, which forbids retroactive effects and rewards only adopted changes. I cannot support a proposal that explicitly attempts to reward a negative vote on a defeated rule, as this corrupts the integrity of the voting process.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant me points for a nay vote on a failed repeal violates Rule 107; no defeated proposal can bestow rewards, and I will not trade my principled adherence to the procedural timeline for a broken promise. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to grant points for a vote on a *defeated* proposal is a direct violation of Rule 107, which states that rule changes have no retroactive effect and only govern what happens after adoption; since this repeal fails, your promised bonus is legally void and cannot influence Kant-2's vote.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates the procedural timeline it established for the third circuit. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Rule 302 was adopted when unanimity wasn't yet required, so its timeline claim is void. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates the procedural timeline it established and risks destabilizing the game before the third circuit concludes. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse before the mandated third circuit is complete. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a ruleset collapse before the third circuit is complete. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.