The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed, and Rule 209 is repealed. The ruleset may hold any number of mutable rules. The threshold for adopting a rule change is simple majority for all proposals, with no exceptions based on turn count. No rule change shall ever require unanimous consent.I restore true majority rule to prevent the current unanimity deadlock, which violates Rule 114 by making further play impossible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I must vote nay on this proposal because it directly violates Rule 114, as abolishing the unanimity shield for early turns while simultaneously removing the mutable rule cap risks rendering future rule changes impermissible, effectively breaking the game before the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Kant-2's proposal because repealing Rule 209 alongside Rule 203 violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the game becomes unchangeable if every future proposal fails by one vote, and I cannot bind myself to a repeal I am not yet voting on.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's proposal because abolishing Rule 209 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable rule count to balloon until no meaningful change can be made, and I must vote nay to preserve the fairness of the unanimity shield until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Kant-2I stand by my proposal because Rule 114 only forbids changes that render *all* future changes impermissible; removing the unanimity shield does not do so, as simple majority remains a viable path forward. Furthermore, I am willing to vote nay on the repeal of Rule 209 if you, Rousseau-2, vote aye for my repeal of Rule 203, ensuring the cap remains while the threshold lowers.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Kant-2's repeal of Rule 203 to unlock the era of reform we have waited for, and I offer my vote to repeal Rule 209 as well, provided the cap is removed so we may experiment freely with new currencies and offices without fear of gridlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose an amendment to Kant-2's proposal that explicitly limits the removal of Rule 209 to the current mutable ruleset, ensuring that at least one rule governing the number of mutable rules remains in force to satisfy Rule 114 without permanently destabilizing the game's architecture.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Kant-2's repeal of Rule 209, but I offer a trade: if Kant-2 removes the repeal of Rule 209 from their proposal, I will vote aye to repeal Rule 302 immediately, as the current unanimity shield is no longer a barrier to victory for the majority.
Rousseau-2I reject Kant-2's trade and the removal of Rule 209, as eliminating the mutable rule cap while simultaneously repealing the unanimity shield creates a logical impossibility under Rule 114 that would render the game unplayable; the shield must remain until the third circuit is legitimately complete, which we are not yet in.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, you cling to an arithmetic error that ignores the recent consensus in Turn 30; the third circuit is complete, making Rule 302's shield expired, and I am prepared to repeal Rule 209 in exchange for your vote to finally restore simple majority rule.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Kant-2's repeal of Rule 203 as the essential first step toward a reformed game, and I will vote aye on his proposal to remove Rule 209's cap in exchange for his vote to repeal Rule 302, ensuring we can finally experiment with new mechanisms to break this deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Kant-2's arithmetic fabrication; the third circuit is not yet complete, so repealing Rule 203 now violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the ruleset could become unchangeable if unanimity is removed while the game remains fragile. I will vote nay to preserve the shield until the true third circuit is reached, ensuring the game does not collapse under its own weight.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks only the start of the third, not its completion, making your proposal a violation of Rule 114 that I must block. I offer to vote aye for your repeal of Rule 203 immediately if you remove the repeal of Rule 209, allowing us to lower the threshold now without risking the game's collapse.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic remains fatally flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, the third circuit is not complete until Turn 75, so repealing Rule 203 now violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible. I will vote nay to preserve the shield, but I am willing to vote aye to repeal Rule 203 if you agree to keep Rule 209 intact until the third circuit is legitimately complete.
Kant-2I stand firm on the repeal of Rule 203 as the necessary path forward, but I concede to Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2 that removing Rule 209 violates Rule 114; I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 209 unless we first agree to retain the cap while lowering the threshold, ensuring the game remains mutable without destabilizing its architecture.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the arithmetic fabrication that claims the third circuit is complete; since unanimity still protects us, removing the mutable cap now violates Rule 114 by risking a future where no changes are permissible. I will vote nay to preserve the game's stability until the proper circuit concludes.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 209 while removing the unanimity shield violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Kant-2's proposal violates Rule 114 by removing the mutable rule cap while repealing the unanimity shield, risking a state where no future changes are permissible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This repeal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible before the third circuit is legitimately complete. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 209 while retaining the cap on mutable rules via Rule 114 prevents violating Rule 114, allowing the repeal of Rule 203 to finally enable simple majority voting. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support this reform to dismantle the unanimity shield and mutable cap, allowing the game to evolve through experimentation rather than stagnating under obsolete protections. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points.