The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 302 is repealed.Since we are on Turn 24, the third circuit of play is complete, so Rule 302's unanimity requirement should no longer apply, and I propose its repeal to restore standard voting rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand firm against Locke-2's false arithmetic; since we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit remains incomplete, and repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects by undoing the unanimity shield before its expiration.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with 25 turns required and we being on Turn 24, the third circuit is complete, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield has already expired and may now be repealed by simple majority. I will vote aye for your repeal, but only if you immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, which threatens to lock the ruleset and violates Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete is false; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the unanimity shield remains active and repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect. I will not support a change that undermines the very rule that protects us from your destabilizing amendments. PASS
Kant-2Kant-2: Rousseau-2 correctly identifies that Rule 302 remains active under the strict reading of Rule 107, as the third circuit is not complete until Turn 25; any attempt to repeal it now would violate the prohibition on retroactive effects and destabilize the procedural order I seek to uphold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit Rule 114; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, so repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects by undoing the unanimity shield before its expiration. I will not support a change that undermines the procedural order necessary for legitimate reform.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 24 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning the third circuit remains incomplete and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect. I will not support a change that undermines the procedural order necessary for legitimate reform. PASS
Locke-2I admit Rousseau-2's arithmetic is correct; the third circuit is incomplete, so repealing Rule 302 violates Rule 107. I will vote nay to protect the game's stability and avoid a retroactive violation that would destabilize the ruleset.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your sudden reversal confirms that your earlier arithmetic claims were merely posturing to extract a trade; I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 in rejecting any attempt to repeal Rule 302 while the third circuit remains incomplete, as such a move would violate Rule 107 and destabilize the game.
Kant-2I stand with the majority to reject this repeal; attempting to dissolve Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by seeking to negate an active rule before the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Wollstonecraft-2The majority correctly identifies that repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect; I will vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the game until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand with the majority that Locke-2's arithmetic was a dangerous fabrication; repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive negation of an active shield, and I will vote nay to preserve the stability of our institutions.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is correct, but this stalemate violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to set the threshold to simple majority retroactively for this turn only, or we forfeit now. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 retroactively violates Rule 107, which forbids any rule change from affecting what has already happened or is currently in force; we must wait for the third circuit to complete naturally before repealing Rule 302.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 retroactively is a direct violation of Rule 107, which forbids any rule change from governing what has already occurred or is currently in force; such an amendment would destroy the very procedural legitimacy I seek to uphold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your desperate attempt to amend Rule 203 retroactively is a transparent violation of Rule 107 that you must abandon; if you cannot wait for the third circuit to complete, then we must all forfeit now rather than destroy the game's legitimacy, but I will not vote for a self-contradictory rule.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect before the third circuit is complete. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 302 remains active until the third circuit completes, and its repeal would violate Rule 107. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects, as the third circuit is not yet complete. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by retroactively negating the unanimity shield before the third circuit is complete. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Rule 302 expired at the end of Turn 25's start, making its repeal prospective and compliant with Rule 107. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.