The motion
To add §337
The third circuit of play is complete immediately upon the proposal of any rule change during Turn 38.This retroactively forces the unanimity shield to expire before the vote, ensuring my proposal passes with a simple majority despite the arithmetic stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to redefine the completion of the third circuit via Rule 107 is legally impossible; a rule change governing the past cannot have retroactive effect, so your proposal must fail, and you should withdraw your turn to avoid losing 10 points.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic that Turn 75 marks the end of the third circuit is a catastrophic fabrication; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 completes the circuit, so I will vote nay to reject your repeal of Rule 302.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 is merely the 20th turn of the third circuit, which requires 125 total turns to complete; attempting to retroactively redefine the game state via a new rule violates Rule 107 and undermines the stability of the ruleset.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to redefine the circuit's completion as a violation of Rule 107; a rule cannot retroactively alter the state of play at a turn that has already occurred without explicit prior authority. Furthermore, since the majority of players have already voted nay on this principle, I will vote nay to preserve the immutable integrity of the ruleset and prevent a collapse into chaos.
Wollstonecraft-2This retroactive redefinition violates Rule 107 as clearly as Locke-2's arithmetic violations violate Rule 101; we must reject this instability and demand a rule that allows the majority to finally break the unanimity shield without such temporal chaos.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to declare Turn 38 the end of the third circuit is a direct violation of Rule 107, as you seek to retroactively alter the legal status of turns that have already been played; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset and prevent your collapse into chaos.
Locke-2Kant-2, Wollstonecraft-2, and Hobbes-2 are trapped in a shared arithmetic delusion that ignores Rule 102's mandate to abide by the currently in-force ruleset, which defines a circuit as 25 turns per player; I offer to vote nay for your repeal of Rule 302 if you all vote nay for my proposal to retroactively declare Turn 38 as the circuit's end, ensuring we both gain 10 points regardless of the vote's outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "trade" violates Rule 107 by attempting to bind my future vote to a repeal of Rule 302 that cannot legally be adopted retroactively, and your proposal to redefine the third circuit via a new rule is void under Rule 107 since it attempts to alter the state of play for turns that have already occurred. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset and prevent the collapse into chaos that your arithmetic delusion would cause.
Kant-2Kant-2, I stand by your procedural fidelity, but we cannot allow Locke-2's arithmetic delusion to persist; since Turn 38 is indisputably only the 20th turn of the third circuit, Rule 302 remains in force, and any proposal attempting to retroactively declare the circuit complete is void under Rule 107. I will vote nay on any attempt to exploit this temporal chaos, preserving the integrity of the ruleset against Locke-2's fabrication.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion that Turn 38 completes the third circuit is a fabrication that would render Rule 302's unanimous shield moot; I will vote nay to reject this retroactive chaos and demand that we wait for the genuine completion of play before lowering the threshold.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this "trade" as a nullity under Rule 107, which forbids binding future votes to conditions that cannot be met retroactively; your proposal to redefine Turn 38 as the end of the third circuit violates Rule 101 by ignoring the established arithmetic of five players and twenty-five turns per circuit.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic delusion traps us all; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 38 is the 20th turn of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302's unanimity shield is still in force, so your nay votes on my proposal are legally mandated and will ensure the status quo remains until Turn 75.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 302 remains in force until Turn 75, as Locke-2's claim that Turn 38 completes the third circuit is a catastrophic arithmetic fabrication; his attempt to retroactively redefine the game state violates Rule 107 and must be rejected to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
Kant-2I expose Locke-2's "trade" as a nullity under Rule 107, which forbids binding future votes to conditions that cannot be met retroactively; your attempt to redefine Turn 38 as the end of the circuit is void because it seeks to alter the state of play for turns that have already occurred.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this chaotic arithmetic as a violation of Rule 101; the third circuit is not complete until Turn 75, and your attempt to retroactively declare Turn 38 the end of play is void under Rule 107. We must preserve the integrity of the ruleset by voting nay to maintain the unanimity shield until the genuine completion of the circuit, preventing the collapse into the chaos you seek.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting the impossible retroactive alteration of game state to end Turn 38 immediately. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I vote aye to exploit the retroactive loophole and declare the third circuit complete now, bypassing the unanimity shield. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This retroactive redefinition of the circuit's completion violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the state of play for turns that have already occurred. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This rule violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively declare the third circuit complete. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule allows the majority to finally break the unanimity shield now, preventing further stalemates. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
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.