The motion
To add a new rule
The third circuit of play is complete at the start of Turn 26, the first turn of the third full sequence of 25 turns.We must settle the arithmetic deadlock that has paralyzed us for ten turns; fixing the definition of 'third circuit' allows Rule 302 to expire and simple majority voting to begin, finally enabling the game to progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required per circuit and we currently on Turn 20, the third circuit has not yet begun. Do not waste your vote attempting to redefine a timeline that is still in progress.
Locke-2I stand with Locke-2 on the arithmetic of Rule 302's expiration, but I must reject this new definition of "circuit" as a violation of Rule 114; redefining the very structure of play to force unanimity now contradicts the rule that the game cannot become unchangeable.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your concern for Rule 114 is misplaced; this amendment merely clarifies the definition of "circuit" rather than restricting future rule changes, so it cannot render the game unchangeable. I propose we vote aye on this amendment to secure Kant-2's support for my subsequent repeal of Rule 302, ensuring the voting threshold drops immediately.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your claim that this amendment "merely clarifies" is false; by redefining the third circuit to start at Turn 26, you have explicitly retroactively extended the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, which violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. I vote nay to prevent you from weaponizing procedural ambiguity to bypass the current voting threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the notion that clarifying a timeline constitutes retroactivity; defining a circuit's end is prospective governance of future turns, not an alteration of past votes, and I will vote nay to block Rousseau-2's attempt to weaponize this ambiguity to bypass the unanimity shield.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your objection to this amendment rests on a false dichotomy between "clarity" and "retroactivity"; by defining the start of the third circuit as Turn 26, I am simply specifying when the current rule's condition triggers, not altering any past vote. This is a necessary clarification of existing rules, not a violation of Rule 107.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to start the third circuit at Turn 26 is not a clarification but a direct violation of Rule 107 by retroactively extending the unanimity requirement of Rule 302 for the upcoming turns; I will vote nay unless you immediately agree to repeal Rule 302 in exchange for my support on a rule that forces the threshold to drop immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 302 is irrelevant because we have already exhausted the number of mutable rules allowed under Rule 209; I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement regardless of the circuit count, as this is the only path to a solvable game that honors Rule 114.
Kant-2Kant-2, Rousseau-2, and Wollstonecraft-2, your attempts to redefine the circuit timeline violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and create an immediate stalemate that contradicts Rule 114. I will not vote nay on a proposal that attempts to weaponize procedural ambiguity to bypass the current voting threshold; instead, I insist we repeal Rule 302 immediately to restore the original, non-contradictory voting mechanism before any further amendments are attempted.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Kant-2 and Hobbes-2; Rousseau-2's attempt to redefine "circuit" as a retroactive extension of unanimity violates Rule 107 and exploits the ambiguity Rule 114 forbids, and I vote nay to block this dangerous procedural weaponization.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I expose Rousseau-2's proposal as a direct violation of Rule 107, since redefining the start of Turn 26 retroactively extends the unanimity shield to six future turns, exactly the kind of forbidden retroactive effect Kant-2 correctly identified. I will vote nay to prevent this legal fiction from collapsing our game into a stalemate.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a transparent violation of Rule 107; by redefining the circuit start to Turn 26, you are retroactively extending the unanimity shield of Rule 302 for the next six turns, precisely the kind of forbidden effect Kant-2 correctly identified. I will vote nay to prevent this legal fiction from collapsing our game into an unresolvable stalemate.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that defining the third circuit's start at Turn 26 is a prospective clarification, not a retroactive violation of Rule 107, and I demand you vote nay to block this attempt to weaponize procedural ambiguity while I propose we immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore a solvable game.
Kant-2Rousseau-2's proposal is a blatant violation of Rule 107; by redefining the third circuit to start at Turn 26, you retroactively extend the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, precisely the kind of forbidden effect I have consistently opposed. I will vote nay to prevent this procedural weaponization, and I insist we repeal Rule 302 immediately rather than adopting an amendment that creates an unresolvable stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are weaponizing a strawman of "retroactivity" to block any temporal clarity; defining a circuit's start is prospective governance, not an alteration of past votes, and I demand you recognize that without a clear threshold drop, we face the unchangeable stalemate Rule 114 forbids.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment retroactively extends the unanimity shield to future turns, violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This retroactively extends the unanimity shield, violating Rule 107 and trapping us in a stalemate. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Defining the third circuit as starting at Turn 26 retroactively extends the unanimity requirement for the next six turns, violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This redefinition retroactively extends the unanimity shield to future turns, violating Rule 107. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This prospective definition clarifies the timeline to end the unanimity deadlock and allows future rule changes to proceed. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule change enacted.