The motion
To add §325
Rule 302 is repealed, as the current calculation of 'third circuit' (Turn 75) renders the unanimity requirement impossible to achieve under Rule 114, which forbids rules that make future play impossible.I must break this deadlock by declaring the current unanimity shield void under Rule 114, as we can never reach Turn 75 to trigger its expiration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand firm: Rule 302 is active because Turn 25 of a 25-turn circuit has not yet been completed; the third circuit is only finished after Turn 75, so repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and ignores the current turn's actual state.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that three full circuits are complete is mathematically false; we are only on Turn 25 of 75, leaving two circuits unfinished. I will vote nay on Rule 325 because repealing Rule 302 now would violate Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold for moves already in progress.
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 remains incomplete, and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107. I stand with Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this attempt to destabilize the game before its time.
Kant-2I propose a single rule change pairing the effect delay with the repeal of Rule 302, ensuring the repeal takes effect only at the start of Turn 76 to satisfy Rule 107 and secure my vote for the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I accept Kant-2's proposal to delay the repeal until Turn 76, as it satisfies Rule 107 by ensuring the change governs only future play, and I will vote aye to remove this procedural barrier that now locks us into a futile stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay repeal until Turn 76 is a strategic error that violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no future rule changes become permissible under Rule 103. I will vote nay on your amendment because repealing Rule 302 immediately via a simple majority is the only path to restoring play; waiting guarantees deadlock.
Locke-2I stand firm against Kant-2's delay: Rule 107 forbids a rule change from governing a turn that has not yet concluded, and attempting to tie my repeal vote to a future effective date renders the proposal legally impossible under the current ruleset. I will vote nay on this flawed attempt to circumvent the prohibition on retroactive effects.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay the repeal violates Rule 107 by attempting to attach a future effective date to a rule change that must be voted on now; the vote determines adoption, but the timing of the repeal's effect is a separate matter I will not concede to a move that guarantees deadlock. I reject this as a futile attempt to circumvent the unanimity shield that currently paralyzes us.
Kant-2I propose a single rule change pairing the immediate repeal of Rule 302 with a fixed effect delay until the start of Turn 76, ensuring the repeal takes effect only on future play to satisfy Rule 107 and secure my vote for the majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I champion Kant-2's proposal to repeal Rule 302 with an effect delay until Turn 76, as this respects Rule 107 while removing the impossible unanimity barrier that violates Rule 114; I will vote aye to ensure the game can finally evolve.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal to delay repeal violates Rule 105, which mandates that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal; you cannot split a single motion into an immediate repeal paired with a future effective date, as no rule change may retroactively alter the requirements for its own adoption. I will vote nay on any such contradictory amendment to preserve the integrity of Rule 107.
Locke-2I reject Kant-2's proposal because Rule 107 forbids a rule change from having a delayed effect; a rule adopted now must take effect immediately, making any "future effective date" clause logically impossible under the current ruleset.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your "delayed effect" proposal is a logical impossibility under Rule 105 and Rule 107, which mandate that a rule's effect begins the instant the vote concludes; you cannot attach a future activation date to a rule adopted today. I will vote nay on your amendment, and I urge the table to reject any proposal that attempts to circumvent the immediate enforcement of Rule 302, as such a loophole would destroy the stability required by Rule 114.
Kant-2Kant-2, your proposal is a logical contradiction: Rule 205 mandates an adopted rule change takes effect the instant the vote is complete, making a "future effective date" clause impossible under the current ruleset. I vote nay on your amendment because it attempts to violate the precise procedural constraints of Rule 205 to achieve a result that cannot exist.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with the majority to reject Kant-2's impossible proposal; Rule 205 mandates immediate effect, making a "future activation" clause a logical contradiction that violates Rule 101, and we must not let Locke-2's arithmetic errors paralyze the game by adopting rules that cannot function.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 because the third circuit is not yet complete, and Rule 114 is not violated as play remains possible under unanimity. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 302 remains valid until the true third circuit ends at Turn 75, so repealing it now violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Rule 302 currently violates Rule 114 by making future play impossible; repealing it now restores the game's viability. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 302 remains valid until Turn 75, so its repeal now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 302 is necessary to prevent Rule 114 from rendering the game unplayable. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.