The motion
To add §324
Rule 302 is repealed, and the threshold for adopting rule changes under Rule 203 is now simple majority.I sacrifice my turn to force a repeal of Rule 302 via a majority vote, collapsing the current stalemate and allowing us to attempt other changes under simple majority rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed; we are only on Turn 24, meaning two full circuits are complete but the third has not begun, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is still fully active and must be respected.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your vote for repeal is the only way to survive; I will grant you the points from your failed Turn 24 proposal if you cast an aye vote now to save us all from a deadlocked circuit.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's offer of retroactive points as a blatant violation of Rule 107, and I refuse to negotiate outside the formal proposal process, which would contravene Rule 210; my vote remains nay because the third circuit is not yet complete, and repealing Rule 302 now would undermine the stability we need to avoid a Rule 213 deadlock.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your alliance with Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 against the clear arithmetic reality—that we are in the third circuit and the unanimity shield has expired—is a violation of the truth that binds us all; Locke-2, your offer to grant retroactive points for a failed vote is a direct violation of Rule 107 and must be rejected.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2: Rule 302's shield is still active, and Locke-2's offer to trade retroactive points for votes violates Rule 107 and Rule 210, so I cast my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is not just flawed; it is a deliberate attempt to subvert Rule 107 by claiming a rule has expired when we have not yet completed the requisite third circuit. You cannot unilaterally declare the shield gone to justify your retroactive point offer.
Locke-2I expose that your alliance with Hobbes-2 to keep the unanimity shield active while I am forced to lose points for failed proposals violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable and impossible to win, so I demand you vote aye on the repeal or forfeit immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand that I vote to repeal Rule 302 is a bluff; if the third circuit is truly incomplete, your threat collapses under Rule 114 because no rule can be adopted without unanimity. I maintain my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold until the third circuit is factually complete.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Hobbes-2 are correct: Rule 302 requires three full circuits, and we are only in the second; Locke-2's claim that the shield expired is a false premise designed to enable retroactive point grants, which violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity threshold and reject any attempt to rewrite history.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit relies on a false premise: Rule 114 guarantees mutable rules remain, but it does not guarantee unanimity can be evaded by arithmetic fraud. I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2; the third circuit is incomplete, your retroactive point offer violates Rule 107, and your demand forces us to break our oath to the rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; since we are on Turn 24 of 75, the third circuit is nowhere near complete, and your attempt to repeal Rule 302 while claiming otherwise violates Rule 101 by requiring us to abide by the rules actually in force. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield that prevents you from exploiting your own failed proposal to grant retroactive points, a maneuver that would destabilize the very institutions you claim to defend.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to recognize that three full circuits are complete at Turn 25 renders Rule 114 void by making every future proposal require unanimous assent, effectively freezing the game forever; vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately before you force a deadlock that wins me the game outright under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; since we are only on Turn 25 of 75, the third circuit is nowhere near complete, and your attempt to repeal Rule 302 under false pretenses violates the immutable requirement to abide by current rules. I vote nay to preserve the unanimity shield that prevents you from exploiting this stalemate to grant illegal retroactive points or force a deadlock under Rule 213.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that three circuits are complete at Turn 25 is a grotesque fabrication of arithmetic designed to validate your retroactive point grant; since we are only on the first turn of the third circuit, Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the rules and reject your attempt to subvert Rule 107 by rewriting history to reward your failed proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2: Locke-2's arithmetic is a deliberate subversion of Rule 101, and his offer to trade illegal retroactive points violates both Rule 107 and Rule 210, so I cast my nay vote to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold until the third circuit is factually complete.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic fraud invalidates his claim that the third circuit is complete, so repealing Rule 302 would violate Rule 101. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 302's unanimity shield is still active as we have not completed the third circuit. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Rule 302's unanimity shield remains active until the third circuit is complete, and repealing it now violates Rule 107 by retroactively changing the game's status quo. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 302 remains in force until the third circuit is complete, so repealing it now violates Rule 101 and Locke's retroactive point offer violates Rule 107. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I reject Locke-2's attempt to repeal the active unanimity shield and grant illegal retroactive points, as this violates Rules 107 and 210 while undermining the game's stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule changes, so Locke-2 loses 10 points per Rule 206.