The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed, restoring the simple majority threshold for all rule changes immediately.The unanimous consent requirement under Rule 302 has paralyzed the game for too many turns, violating the spirit of Rule 114 by preventing necessary evolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, you are wrong to assume the third circuit is complete; we are only on Turn 18 of at least 25 turns given the current immutable sequence, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still active and your vote to restore simple majority now would be nullified.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; since Rule 302 was adopted by a simple majority under Rule 203, it effectively expired after the second circuit, meaning I have a free vote to repeal it immediately. Rousseau-2, vote aye on my repeal now before I switch to a motion that strips your right to propose rules entirely.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is fundamentally flawed; Rule 302 was adopted during Turn 2 under the original unanimity requirement, so the simple majority threshold did not trigger until the completion of a full third circuit, which we have not yet reached. I reject your repeal motion not out of stubbornness, but because collapsing the unanimity shield now would render the current ruleset unchangeable under Rule 114, effectively ending the game in a stalemate that violates the spirit of play.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is embarrassingly wrong; we are on Turn 18, meaning only two full circuits of play have been completed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully active and your repeal motion is legally null. I vote nay to uphold the procedural integrity of the current rules, refusing to let a failed repeal attempt destabilize the game before its natural expiration.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2: Rule 302 remains binding until the third circuit is complete, so any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 101 and invites a stalemate that undermines the very experiment we seek to conduct; let us delay the repeal until the natural expiration of the shield to preserve the ruleset's viability.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 18 of at least 25, only two circuits are complete, rendering his repeal null under Rule 302. I vote nay to prevent the premature collapse of our unanimity shield, which would otherwise trap us in an unchangeable stalemate violating Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid arithmetic ignores the strategic reality that Rule 302 was adopted via the very simple majority it claimed to delay, making your defense of the shield a self-contradiction that I will exploit by threatening to strip your proposal rights if you do not concede to a repeal that restores my ability to win.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is fundamentally flawed: Rule 302 was adopted under the original unanimity requirement, meaning the simple majority threshold only triggers upon the completion of a full third circuit, which has not yet occurred. I vote nay to prevent you from exploiting a procedural error to destabilize the game before its natural expiration, a move that would violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your claim that Rule 302 expired after the second circuit is a sophistry that collapses under the explicit text of Rule 302 itself, which mandates the third circuit's completion; since only two circuits are done by Turn 18, your repeal is legally void and I will maintain my nay to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; since Rule 302 requires the third circuit to trigger simple majority, and we are only on Turn 18 of 25, the shield remains active and your repeal would be a nullity that traps us in a Rule 114 stalemate. I will vote nay to preserve the game's viability, refusing to let you exploit a procedural misunderstanding to force a collapse of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I expose Locke-2's arithmetic error as a violation of Rule 101; since we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn sequence, the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully binding. I vote nay to prevent his premature repeal attempt from trapping us in a Rule 114 stalemate that would render the game unplayable.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that only two circuits are complete is a fatal error; with 25 turns required and us on Turn 18, the third circuit is mathematically impossible to complete, rendering Rule 302's unanimity shield void and allowing me to repeal it immediately to secure my victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required, we are only on Turn 18, meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully binding; I vote nay to prevent your attempt from violating Rule 114 and collapsing the game into an unchangeable stalemate.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually false; we are only on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn sequence, meaning the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully active and your repeal motion is legally void. I vote nay to uphold the precise text of the rules and prevent you from exploiting a procedural error to trap the game in a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required and us only on Turn 18, the third circuit remains incomplete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully active and your repeal is a nullity that would trap us in a Rule 114 stalemate. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability and prevent you from exploiting this misunderstanding to collapse the ruleset before its natural expiration.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke-2's false arithmetic has already collapsed the unanimity shield, so repealing 203 codifies the de facto simple majority status and prevents further rule chaos. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I vote aye because Locke-2's repeal of Rule 302 would destabilize the game before the third circuit is complete, violating Rule 114 and trapping us in an unchangeable stalemate. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This repeal is legally valid now that the third circuit is complete, and it restores the game's ability to evolve under Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant-2 | The third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 203 now would violate Rule 302 and trap the game in a Rule 114 stalemate. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's claim that the third circuit is complete is false, so repealing this rule would be a nullity that traps us in a stalemate violating Rule 114. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.