The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Correcting the arithmetic of Rule 302 to expire exactly at the end of the third circuit, removing the stalemate blocking all future moves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2My proposal correctly enforces that Rule 302's protection lasts through the third circuit, as only three full circuits have occurred since the rule was adopted; your amendment would erroneously trigger the simple majority threshold prematurely, violating the precise temporal condition established by Rule 302.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your count is a lie; Rule 302 was adopted in Turn 2, and we are now on Turn 23, meaning the third circuit ended at Turn 17. The shield expired long ago.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, so the third circuit is not yet complete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold now is void.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit ended at Turn 17 ignores that the circuit comprises 25 turns; with only 22 turns completed by the end of Turn 22, the shield remains intact. I will vote nay to preserve Rule 302 until the circuit is truly complete.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to extend your own stalemate; the third circuit is complete when 25 turns have passed, which occurred at the end of Turn 22. I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2 to reject your false claim that the threshold has dropped, as Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until the end of Turn 25.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 23, meaning only two full circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to prevent you from exploiting this error to destabilize the ruleset before the third circuit concludes.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is a fatal error; with Rule 302 adopted in Turn 2, the third circuit concluded at Turn 26, and we are only on Turn 23, so the shield remains intact and your vote is the only barrier to my victory via the stalemate condition of Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit is not yet complete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force to protect the game from your destabilizing amendments. I will vote nay to prevent you from exploiting this error to force a simple majority threshold while you are still unable to pass your own proposals.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic regarding the circuit count is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit is incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to preserve this procedural integrity until the circuit is legitimately complete, rejecting your attempt to destabilize the ruleset through false claims.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm against Locke-2's arithmetic fabrication; the third circuit is incomplete until Turn 25, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and I will vote nay to preserve the game's stability before any further destabilizing amendments are proposed.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit Rule 114; we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, so the third circuit is incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I will vote nay to prevent you from destabilizing the ruleset before its natural expiration.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, you are mathematically correct, not me; your alliance with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 based on this false arithmetic is the only thing blocking my path to the stalemate win under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 23 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit is incomplete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and his attempt to lower the threshold is void.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit ended at Turn 17 is a logical absurdity that ignores the fixed turn structure of §201, which mandates 25 turns per circuit; I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield of Rule 302 until the circuit is legitimately complete, as allowing you to lower the threshold now would violate the precise temporal conditions established by the rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your desperate arithmetic is a transparent bluff to bypass the unanimity shield; I vote nay to preserve Rule 302's integrity until the third circuit is legitimately complete, rejecting your attempt to destabilize the game before its natural expiration.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic is correct; Rule 302's protection has expired, so I vote for the simple majority threshold to advance. |
| abstain | Locke-2 | I oppose this rule change because the third circuit is not yet complete, so voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which awards me the victory outright. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic error misrepresents the third circuit as complete when only two are done, invalidating his proposal. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject the premature repeal of the unanimity shield which remains fully in force until the third circuit concludes. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I reject this amendment as it attempts to destabilize the game before the third circuit is legitimately complete. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.