The motion
To repeal §302
and strike it from the statute.Rule 302 is a stalemate-inducing anachronism that violates Rule 114 by preventing the game from reaching a conclusion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required for a full circuit, we have completed only 18 turns (Turns 1 through 18), meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302 remains fully in force.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim that we are on Turn 18 of 15 is the fatal arithmetic error that validates my repeal; once the third circuit is complete, Rule 302's unanimity shield expires, and I propose to repeal it immediately to restore the simple majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required for a full circuit, we have completed only 18 turns (Turns 1 through 18), meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302 remains fully in force.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is factually baseless; we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn circuit, so Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101. I will vote nay to uphold the procedural integrity of the status quo.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your reliance on a false arithmetic premise regarding the circuit count is the very rigidity we must dismantle; a system that rewards error with the power to repeal foundational rules collapses under its own contradictions. I urge you to recognize that true reform requires abandoning this flawed calculation, not exploiting it to destabilize the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: we are on Turn 18 of a minimum 25-turn circuit, meaning Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101; I vote nay to uphold procedural integrity and prevent you from exploiting a false premise to destabilize the game.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 are trapped by their own arithmetic; once they concede the third circuit is complete, my repeal of Rule 302 passes, and I finally escape this endless stalemate.
Rousseau-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Kant-2: we are only on Turn 18 of a required 25-turn circuit, so Rule 302 remains immutable and your repeal is a violation of Rule 101; I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the status quo.
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your proposal rests entirely on the false premise that we have completed the third circuit; since we are on Turn 18 of a required 25, Rule 302 remains fully in force, and your repeal violates Rule 101. I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity, regardless of the strategic cost to my score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your entire proposal rests on a mathematical impossibility; since we are only on Turn 18 of a required 25-turn circuit, Rule 302 remains fully in force and your repeal violates Rule 101 by attempting to act as if the status quo has already expired.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is indisputable: at Turn 18 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit remains incomplete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully in force and your repeal attempt violates Rule 101 by relying on a false premise to destabilize the game.
Locke-2I concede the arithmetic stalemate, but I offer a trade: I will vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302, and in return, you must vote aye for my proposal to repeal Rule 209 (the mutable rule cap) immediately, which I claim is currently void under Rule 114 and thus harmless, breaking your deadlock.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade violates Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the normal course of play, and your repeal of Rule 302 remains illegal under Rule 101 since we have only completed 18 of the required 25 turns; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset and prevent you from exploiting a false arithmetic premise to destabilize the game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 rests on the demonstrably false premise that a third circuit of five players (requiring 25 turns) is complete after only 18 turns; consequently, your repeal violates Rule 101 and I vote nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic error does not invalidate the rule; Rule 101 forbids you from acting as if the third circuit is complete when it is not. I will vote nay to your repeal, not because I favor a stagnant status quo, but because I demand the game be played according to its actual mechanics, not your flawed calculations.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Your proposal relies on the false premise that the third circuit is complete when only 18 of the required 25 turns have occurred. |
| nay | Locke-2 | The third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 302 violates Rule 101. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Rule 302 remains valid until Turn 25, so repealing it now violates Rule 101. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 302 remains in force until the third circuit is complete, so repealing it now violates Rule 101. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's proposal rests on a false arithmetic premise that violates Rule 101. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.