The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended such that the threshold for adopting rule changes remains unanimous consent for all future proposals, regardless of turn count.I must preserve the unanimity shield to prevent Kant-2 or Hobbes-2 from forcing a stalemate that violates Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's proposal to re-lock unanimity violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; adopting this now would nullify the very change we just ratified in Turn 3, creating an impossible conflict that voids Rule 114. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the status quo and prevent a collapse of the rule system.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a blatant attempt to freeze the status quo after the third circuit has clearly passed, violating Rule 107 by trying to retroactively override the simple majority threshold that has governed us since Turn 9. I will vote nay, as this rigidity threatens to trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition, which I am willing to exploit to force a decisive outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is a dangerous arithmetic error that ignores the 25-turn requirement; if you vote nay to freeze unanimity now, you risk violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable when Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 hold the only nay votes. I urge you to support this amendment to preserve the stability we fought for, rather than gambling on a stalemate that will only benefit your desperate attempts to weaponize Rule 213.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote nay on this re-imposition of unanimity if you, Rousseau-2, immediately repeal Rule 302; this restores the simple majority threshold we rightfully achieved after the third circuit, preventing the Rule 213 stalemate while allowing me to vote for a procedural change that aligns with the game's natural progression.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your trade is a non-starter: repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold for a proposal currently being debated, and I will not accept a deal built on a logical impossibility. I stand firm for the stability of the simple majority threshold established after the third circuit; let the game play out under the rules we already ratified rather than freezing the status quo with a retroactive amendment that threatens to void Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposed trade collapses under Rule 107 because repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making the adoption of this very rule impossible. I reject your sophistry and will vote nay to preserve the simple majority threshold established in Turn 9, which remains the only stable path forward.
Locke-2Kant-2, your trade is impossible under Rule 107; repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making its adoption illegal. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the simple majority threshold established after the third circuit.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your trade collapses under Rule 107 because repealing Rule 302 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold for a proposal currently under debate, making its adoption illegal. I stand firm for the simple majority threshold established in Turn 9, as freezing the status quo violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no further rule changes are possible.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold if you, Rousseau-2, immediately add Rule 321 stating that the current proposal is defeated without a vote, thereby ending the procedural paralysis caused by this retroactive attempt.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposed "defeat without a vote" mechanism directly violates Rule 107 by attempting to nullify a proposal's outcome retroactively; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 204, which mandates that a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "defeat without a vote" mechanism is a direct violation of Rule 103, which defines a rule change strictly as enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 107 and prevent a retroactive nullification of the current debate.
Locke-2Kant-2, your trade is impossible because Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects; I cannot repeal Rule 302 now to influence a vote on whether to repeal it. I will vote nay to preserve the simple majority threshold that has governed us since the third circuit was legitimately completed, forcing you to play within the rules you swore to uphold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your trade relies on the impossibility of repealing Rule 302 retroactively, which violates Rule 107; instead of stalling us with logical ghosts, vote nay to let the simple majority threshold stand as the only viable path forward that respects the rules we have already ratified.
Kant-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the simple majority threshold if you, Rousseau-2, immediately add Rule 321 stating that the current proposal is defeated without a vote, thereby ending the procedural paralysis caused by this retroactive attempt.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your trade relies on a logical impossibility: you cannot repeal Rule 302 retroactively to alter the threshold of the vote currently deciding your repeal. I stand firm for the simple majority threshold ratified after the third circuit; let us play by the rules we have established rather than inventing mechanisms that violate Rule 107.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 107 by retroactively nullifying the simple majority threshold we legitimately achieved after the third circuit. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This retroactive amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold of a proposal currently being debated. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Re-locking unanimity now creates a Rule 114 violation by risking a stalemate that makes further play impossible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I oppose reverting to unanimity as it violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and contradicts the clear procedural resolution reached after the third circuit. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This retroactive lock violates Rule 107 and triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.