The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I must flip Rule 203 to mutable now that the third circuit is complete, allowing us to finally vote on the repeal of Rule 302 and escape this deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2's arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed; we are only on Turn 26 of 75, meaning two full circuits are nowhere near complete. Any proposal to repeal Rule 302 now would be void under Rule 107 for attempting to apply a new threshold retroactively to the current circuit. I reject this as a desperate bluff.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are wrong; at Turn 26 we have completed exactly two full circuits of five players, so the unanimity shield of Rule 302 has legally expired and Rule 203 now mandates a simple majority. I propose we repeal Rule 302 immediately to lock in this majority threshold and end this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that we are on Turn 26 of 75 is a transparent fabrication designed to exploit the confusion of others; with only 25 turns required for a circuit and we currently on Turn 26, the third circuit has not even begun, let alone completed two full circuits. I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect, and your attempt to repeal it now is a futile exercise that violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively to the current turn.
Kant-2The arithmetic is undeniable: 25 turns constitute one circuit; thus, Turns 1–25 form the first circuit, Turns 26–50 the second, and Turns 51–75 the third. Since we are on Turn 26, exactly two full circuits are complete, triggering Rule 203's shift to simple majority. Rule 302 is therefore redundant and obstructing; I propose its repeal to allow legitimate rule changes without this artificial unanimity blockade.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the arithmetic of Kant-2 and Locke-2 as a dangerous fabrication; Rule 302 was adopted to ensure stability, and repealing it now violates the spirit of Rule 114 by threatening the very possibility of future play. Instead of destroying the unanimity shield, I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule cap to 18, ensuring the ruleset remains flexible enough to resolve this deadlock without collapsing into chaos.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2's arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 26 of only 75 total turns (three circuits of 25), meaning the second circuit is only just beginning, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the stability of the institutions we have built.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2 are trapped by their own false arithmetic; with 25 turns per circuit, we are at the start of the third circuit, not the second, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield has legally expired and I propose its immediate repeal to lock in the simple majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 26 of 75, meaning the second circuit is just beginning and the third has not started, so Rule 302 remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I stand firm that the unanimity shield protects us from destabilizing amendments until the third circuit is complete, and I reject this attempt to erase our current legal reality.
Kant-2My arithmetic regarding the completion of circuits is irrefutable under Rule 201 and Rule 203; since we are on Turn 26, two full circuits are complete, making Rule 302 redundant and its repeal procedurally valid. I urge Wollstonecraft-2 to reconsider their strategic retreat and vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold, which is now legally mandated to shift to simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose that we transmute Rule 203 to make the unanimity threshold permanent, ensuring that no single player can destabilize the game with a flawed arithmetic claim about circuits, thereby securing a stable foundation for genuine experimentation rather than chaotic rule-wrangling.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2's arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with only 25 turns per circuit and we currently on Turn 26, the third circuit has not begun, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the stability of the institutions we have built.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with 25 turns required per circuit, Turn 26 marks the start of the *third* circuit, not the second, meaning Rule 302 has already expired and I demand its immediate repeal to end this deadlock.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect until the third circuit is complete, and any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107 by imposing a retroactive change on the current turn. I reject Locke-2's false arithmetic and vote nay to preserve the stability of our institutions.
Kant-2I maintain that the arithmetic of two completed circuits at Turn 26 is irrefutable; therefore, the unanimity shield has legally expired, and I vote nay to repeal Rule 302 to preserve the procedural integrity now mandated by Rule 203.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Locke-2 are trapped in a paradox of their own making: if they are wrong about the circuit count, Rule 302 stands, but if they are right, Rule 302 must be repealed to unlock the majority threshold they claim already exists. I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable cap to 15, forcing a rapid resolution of this deadlock through scarcity rather than endless arithmetic bickering.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic is a fabrication, and voting nay here would be the only way to ensure I don't accidentally adopt a rule under a false pretense of majority. |
| abstain | Locke-2 | I must break the unanimity blockade by securing Kant-2's support through a shared belief that the third circuit has begun, hoping their eventual victory will validate my arithmetic and restore the simple majority threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Transmuting Rule 203 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a new threshold retroactively to the current circuit. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Transmuting Rule 203 to make unanimity permanent would permanently violate Rule 114 by making the simple majority threshold impossible to achieve ever again. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support transmuting Rule 203 to permanently require unanimity, securing stability against arithmetic disputes and allowing genuine reform. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke-2 loses 10 points while no rules are amended.