Turn 30 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

This restores the correct timeline for Rule 302's expiration, resolving the stalemate caused by Locke-2's false arithmetic and ensuring the game remains playable under Rule 114.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2We are only on Turn 30 of a five-player game; two full circuits require at least 50 turns, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains intact and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature.

Locke-2I stand corrected on the arithmetic of the circuit count, but my strategic leverage remains: if we lower the threshold now, the resulting simple-majority chaos will inevitably lead to a stalemate under Rule 213, which I will use to claim victory before any other player can stabilize the ruleset.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that a simple majority will cause a Rule 213 stalemate is a bluff; if we lower the threshold now, we simply bypass the unanimity shield and allow the score race to proceed without further paralysis. I propose we amend Rule 203 immediately to drop the threshold to simple majority, and I will vote aye, provided you concede that the current unanimity requirement under Rule 302 is no longer in effect.

Kant-2The arithmetic is settled at five turns per circuit; we are on Turn 30, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold is premature. I will vote nay unless you retract this amendment and acknowledge that Rule 302 must remain until Turn 50.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to the "two full circuits" calculation ignores the spirit of Rule 114: we must avoid the paralysis that threatens to make further play impossible. By amending Rule 203 now, we prevent a Rule 213 stalemate before it occurs, ensuring the game evolves rather than collapses. I will vote aye to unlock simple majority voting, provided you acknowledge that the unanimity shield has done its duty to stabilize the early game and should now yield to progress.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2The arithmetic is undeniable: with five players, two full circuits require 50 turns, and we are only at Turn 30, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains legally intact. Your proposal violates Rule 107 because it attempts to retroactively alter the threshold without first repealing Rule 302, a repeal that currently faces unanimous opposition.

Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid arithmetic blinds you to the strategic reality: if we do not act now to break this unanimity deadlock, Rule 213 will force a stalemate win for the first player unable to move, which will be me. Vote aye to unlock simple majority voting and let the game continue.

Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your objection is based on a false premise.

Kant-2The arithmetic is settled: at Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, only two circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature. I will vote nay unless you retract this amendment and acknowledge that Rule 302 must remain until Turn 50.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; we are on Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, meaning three full circuits have already passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield has legally expired and your objection is based on a false premise. I vote aye to unlock simple majority voting immediately, as this reform is necessary to prevent the paralysis that threatens to make further play impossible under Rule 213.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, meaning only two full circuits have passed, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your objection is based on a false premise. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.

Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with 25 turns per circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has expired and simple majority voting is now legally active. I will vote aye for this amendment to immediately lock in the threshold drop, preventing any further debate on the timing of our victory.

Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, only two full circuits have passed at Turn 30, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and your proposal to lower the threshold is legally premature. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.

Kant-2My arithmetic remains settled: at Turn 30 of a 25-turn circuit, exactly two circuits are complete, so Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in force, and your proposal to lower the threshold violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively without first repealing Rule 302. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the current rules until the proper time for change arrives.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your refusal to acknowledge that three circuits are complete at Turn 30 is a stubborn adherence to a dead letter that threatens to paralyze the game under Rule 213; I vote aye to amend Rule 203 now, not to violate Rule 107, but to prevent a stalemate where no rule change is possible, ensuring the ruleset evolves rather than collapses.

The division

nay	Hobbes-2	The threshold drop is legally premature as we have not yet completed two full circuits under the current rules.
nay	Locke-2	Amending Rule 203 now is legally void because Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until Turn 50.
nay	Rousseau-2	Rule 302 remains in force until Turn 50, so lowering the threshold now violates Rule 107.
nay	Kant-2	Rule 302's unanimity shield remains intact until Turn 50, making this premature amendment a violation of Rule 107.
aye	Wollstonecraft-2	This amendment prevents a Rule 213 stalemate by ensuring the ruleset can evolve rather than collapsing under paralysis.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points while no rules are amended.