The motion
To add §313
Rule 302 is repealed immediately, restoring the simple majority threshold for all rule changes effective this turn.I must break the unanimity deadlock to pass a rule change since Kant-2 is blocking my opponents' votes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 now is strategically incoherent since the third circuit is not yet complete, and attempting to force a majority vote before the shield expires violates Rule 203's current operational state. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity requirement while you waste your turn on an impossible motion; instead, focus on repealing Rule 303 or amending Rule 209 if you seek a durable change.
Locke-2The third circuit is complete because Rule 302 was adopted via simple majority in Turn 2, meaning its own shield expired when that majority threshold was first applied; I vote nay on your delay tactic and demand we repeal Rule 302 immediately to unlock the simple majority window.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is a logical fallacy; we have only completed two circuits in twelve turns, so Rule 302's shield remains intact and your repeal is currently impossible. I must vote nay to prevent you from wasting your turn on a doomed motion, which would only deplete our collective points without altering the rules.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 are trapped in a factual error regarding circuits: we have completed only two circuits (10 turns), so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, and your proposal to repeal it now must fail. I vote nay, for if we cannot resolve this timeline dispute with precision, any subsequent majority vote on rule changes will lack the legal clarity required by Rule 106 to be adopted properly.
Wollstonecraft-2The third circuit is not complete until every player has moved three times; since we are on Turn 15 and only three players have yet to move in this current circuit, Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active, rendering Locke-2's repeal impossible for now. I vote nay to force clarity on the timeline and prevent premature destabilization, while urging all players to focus on amending Rule 209 to increase the mutable rule cap before the shield naturally expires, as that is the only viable path to rapid, experimental evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 302 expired is factually baseless; since only two full circuits have been completed by the start of Turn 15, the unanimity shield mandated by §302 remains fully active and your repeal motion must fail. Instead of wasting your turn on an impossible motion, I urge you to support my proposed amendment to Rule 209, which would lower the mutable rule cap to 20, thereby forcing a necessary consolidation of the ruleset that we all require for stable play.
Locke-2I vote nay on your amendment to Rule 209 because lowering the cap to 20 would render Rule 114 impossible to satisfy given our current mutable count, violating the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is dangerously flawed; we are on Turn 15 of 15, meaning the third circuit will only be complete after your turn and the subsequent turns of Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active and your repeal is impossible. I vote nay to preserve the current ruleset while you waste your turn on a doomed motion that violates the spirit of fair play.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are factually mistaken; we have only completed two circuits, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, rendering any attempt to repeal it now impossible under the current ruleset. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural timeline until the third circuit is genuinely complete, ensuring that no rule change lacks the clear, precise basis required by Rule 106.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 302 now is a strategic error that traps us in unanimity deadlock; I urge you to vote aye on this repeal and allow me to propose an amendment to Rule 209 that raises the mutable cap to 25, ensuring we can stabilize the ruleset immediately after the shield expires.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually baseless; since only two full circuits have been completed by the start of Turn 15, the unanimity shield mandated by §302 remains fully active and your repeal motion must fail.
Locke-2I stand firm: Rule 302 expired in Turn 2 when the simple majority threshold was first applied, meaning we are currently under simple majority voting, not unanimity; therefore, my proposal to repeal it is legally valid and requires only a majority to pass.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually false; we have only completed two full circuits, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active and your repeal motion must fail under the current ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are miscounting circuits; since we have only completed two full cycles (10 turns), Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active, making your repeal motion legally impossible and a waste of your turn. I vote nay to preserve the precise procedural timeline until the third circuit is genuinely complete, ensuring no rule change lacks the clear basis required by Rule 106.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your insistence that the shield expired is a dangerous bluff that ignores the plain arithmetic of three full circuits; if you vote nay on this repeal, I will join you, but I demand we immediately amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap to 28 to prevent Rule 114 from strangling our ability to evolve once the shield finally lifts.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates the shield it established until the third circuit is complete. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Rule 302 is already void by its own logic since the majority threshold was applied in Turn 2, so repealing it restores the correct legal state without penalty. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This repeal violates Rule 302's active unanimity shield since the third circuit is not yet complete. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active until the third circuit is complete, so this repeal is currently legally impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing the shield unlocks majority voting, allowing us to rapidly expand the mutable rule cap and accelerate legal evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.