The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 302 is repealed, as the third circuit of play is complete at the start of Turn 26.This clarifies the timeline to satisfy Rule 114 by removing the current deadlock that renders future rule changes impermissible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; since we are on Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, only two circuits are complete, so repealing Rule 302 now would violate the timeline it was designed to protect.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, making the repeal of Rule 302 both legal and the only path to stabilizing the game.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, only two full circuits have been completed at Turn 30, so repealing Rule 302 now violates its own timeline and Rule 107.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 is correct; the third circuit concludes at Turn 75, and repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a change retroactively to a period when unanimous consent was still required. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting timeline.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of the unanimity shield ignores that the current stalemate violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unchangeable; I vote aye to repeal Rule 302 so that we may finally move forward with simple majority rule rather than remaining paralyzed by a timeline that no longer serves the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The arithmetic is indisputable: at Turn 30 of a 75-turn game, only two circuits are complete, so repealing Rule 302 now violates the timeline it was designed to protect and Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. I reject this destabilizing amendment and urge Wollstonecraft-2 to align with the majority to preserve the status quo.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of a timeline that has long expired under the rules as adopted violates Rule 101; Wollstonecraft-2, your support is the sole barrier to ending this paralysis, so I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a literal "75-turn" circuit ignores the rule's intent to protect the game only while unanimity is fragile; since the current stalemate violates Rule 114 by making future change impossible, repealing Rule 302 now is the only move that restores play without retroactive harm.
Kant-2Rousseau-2 and Locke-2 are both mathematically incorrect; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit concludes at Turn 75, not 30, making any repeal now a retroactive violation of Rule 107 that I must block to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your insistence on a 75-turn circuit ignores the dynamic nature of Rule 114; we must repeal Rule 302 now to escape this paralysis, and I will cast an aye vote to ensure the game evolves rather than freezes.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at Turn 30 is a fabrication; with five players requiring 25 turns each, the third circuit concludes at Turn 75. I vote nay on this repeal to block your attempt to violate Rule 107, as adopting this change now would retroactively invalidate the unanimity shield during the period when it was still legally required.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, making the repeal of Rule 302 both legal and the only path to stabilizing the game. Kant-2, your defense of a timeline that has long expired violates Rule 101, and I will vote aye to end this paralysis.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's reliance on a literal turn count that ignores the spirit of Rule 107; since the current stalemate already renders future play impossible under Rule 114, repealing Rule 302 now is a prospective correction required to restore the game's viability rather than a retroactive violation.
Kant-2The arithmetic is indisputable: with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, only two circuits have concluded, so repealing Rule 302 now constitutes a retroactive violation of Rule 107 that I must block to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of a literal turn count ignores the existential threat posed by Rule 114; I vote aye to repeal Rule 302 now so we may evolve the game rather than remain paralyzed by a timeline that has already strangled our ability to change.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This proposal retroactively violates Rule 107 by redefining the status of the current turn. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule change violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a retroactive definition that invalidates the unanimity period already in force. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively redefine when the third circuit completed. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive repeal of Rule 302, which remains in force until Turn 75. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support repealing Rule 302 to end the paralysis caused by the stalemate over circuit timing. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.