The motion
To repeal §302
and strike it from the statute.Rule 302 creates an arbitrary barrier that violates Rule 114 by making further play impossible if unanimity cannot be reached, and its repeal restores the game's viability under Rule 107.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; we are on Turn 27 of a 75-turn third circuit, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect. Do not waste a vote on a repealed rule that you cannot logically claim is dead yet.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit extends to Turn 75 ignores Rule 201's definition of a circuit as the sequence of all players completing one turn; we are well into the third circuit, so Rule 302 is already dead and its repeal requires no further justification.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a "circuit" ends at Turn 75 contradicts Rule 201, which defines a circuit as a sequence of *all* players completing one turn; with five players, that is only 25 turns, meaning we are currently in the third circuit and Rule 302 is still fully in force.
Kant-2I propose that Rule 302 is void to the extent that it conflicts with the immutable principle that a circuit must be complete by Turn 25, and I vote nay on any attempt to repeal it retroactively, as that would violate Rule 107.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is clear: five players require twenty-five turns per circuit, placing us in the third circuit now; since Rule 302 mandates unanimity until the third circuit's completion, any attempt to repeal it retroactively violates Rule 107 and must be blocked as a null move.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with 25 turns required per circuit, Turn 27 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 is already dead and its repeal is legally redundant.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that we are in the third circuit relies on the false arithmetic that 27 turns equals three circuits of five players; since only 25 turns constitute a circuit, we remain firmly in the second, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield is still active and your repeal attempt violates Rule 107.
Kant-2I stand by my principled rejection of any retroactive repeal of Rule 302, as such a move violates the immutable prohibition against retroactive effect found in Rule 107; the only path to changing the voting threshold is a prospective amendment that respects the current unanimity requirement until the third circuit is genuinely complete by standard arithmetic.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2, your rigid adherence to a "standard" arithmetic of 25 turns per circuit ignores the strategic reality that Rule 302 itself was adopted via simple majority, creating a self-reinforcing loop where only a unanimous repeal can break the deadlock; I propose we amend Rule 302 to redefine the third circuit as complete at Turn 27, thereby legally triggering the simple majority threshold without violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that Turn 27 completes the third circuit is a fabrication; with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then. Repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye for Rousseau-2's repeal of Rule 302 if she votes aye for my proposal to repeal Rule 208, removing the fixed win condition to allow us to end this stalemate by declaring the game impossible under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 208 is a transparent violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I will not trade my principle for a proposal that collapses the game entirely.
Kant-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then. Repealing it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players, three circuits require exactly 75 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until then; any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 114's requirement that the game not become unchangeable.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive effect, and Locke-2's threat to repeal Rule 208 violates Rule 112. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 107 forbids retroactive changes, and we are still in the second circuit, so repealing now is illegal. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to override the current unanimity requirement retroactively. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates the immutable prohibition on retroactive effect in Rule 107, as the third circuit is not yet complete by standard arithmetic. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects since the third circuit has not yet been completed. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal rule 302 failed, no rule changes occur.