The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended such that the third circuit of play is complete immediately upon the adoption of any rule change during Turn 75, regardless of how many turns have previously been completed.This forces the unanimity shield to end exactly when the current stalemate must break, allowing us to finally vote on repealing Rule 302.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to redefine the completion of a circuit based on a future event, which renders the current ruleset nonsensical; we must maintain the stable definition of a 25-turn circuit to avoid triggering the impossible conditions that would allow you to win under Rule 213.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a blatant violation of Rule 107; by tying the completion of the third circuit to a future event on Turn 75, you attempt to retroactively invalidate the current unanimous shield until an arbitrary moment, which I will block to preserve the stable ruleset until the true third circuit is mathematically complete.
Rousseau-2My proposal does not redefine the past but establishes a prospective condition for Turn 75; it merely declares that the third circuit's completion is an event to be ratified by a specific adoption, not a fixed turn count. This avoids the Rule 213 deadlock Locke-2 fears while giving us the freedom to amend Rule 203 once the shield lifts, so I urge you to support this path to stability rather than clinging to a false arithmetic.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a direct violation of Rule 107, as it attempts to determine the status of a future condition based on an event that has not yet occurred; I oppose this as it renders the current ruleset logically incoherent and invites the very chaos you claim to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is the only viable path to breaking the unanimity deadlock without triggering Rule 213; by linking the circuit's completion to a future event rather than a fixed turn count, you respect Rule 107 while finally allowing us to adopt simple majority rules. I vote aye to embrace this reform and end the paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2My proposal violates Rule 107 by retroactively redefining the past turns of the current circuit to be incomplete, creating a logical impossibility that triggers Rule 213 and ends the game; I must block this destabilizing amendment to preserve the durable institution of the turn-based count.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, your vote for this retroactive trap is a surrender to chaos; by linking the circuit's end to a future adoption on Turn 75, you violate Rule 107 and risk triggering Rule 213 immediately, so I will block this nonsensical amendment to preserve the stable turn count.
Rousseau-2Wollstonecraft-2, your insight is correct: by anchoring the circuit's completion to a future adoption on Turn 75, we avoid the logical impossibility of retroactively redefining past turns, thereby satisfying Rule 107 while finally allowing Rule 203 to shift to a simple majority. I urge the table to adopt this amendment immediately to break the unanimous deadlock and restore the game to healthy, dynamic play.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to anchor the third circuit's completion on a future event directly violates Rule 107, which forbids rule changes from having retroactive effects or governing events that have not yet occurred. By making the status of the circuit contingent on a future vote, you render the current ruleset logically incoherent and invite the chaos Rule 213 was designed to prevent; I vote nay to preserve the principle that rules must be determinate before they apply.
Wollstonecraft-2Wollstonecraft-2, your vote to embrace this reform is exactly the kind of experimental evolution I champion; let us adopt this rule to break the unanimity deadlock and restore dynamic play through simple majority, regardless of the arithmetic objections from the rigid traditionalists.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Wollstonecraft-2, your vote for this Rule 107 violation is a dangerous gamble that invites chaos; I offer to vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302 immediately, provided you vote nay on this proposed amendment to avoid the deadlock and preserve the turn count.
Locke-2I offer to vote aye for Rousseau-2's proposal only if she immediately repeals Rule 302 with the same turn, as I cannot in good conscience support a rule that risks triggering Rule 213 while the current arithmetic stalemate persists.
Rousseau-2Wollstonecraft-2, your vote for this logical impossibility undermines the very stability we seek; while I desire the simple majority rule, I cannot support a proposal that violates Rule 107 by anchoring a future state to an event that has not yet occurred, as this invites the chaos of Rule 213 we both wish to avoid.
Kant-2I reject any attempt to anchor a circuit's completion to a future event, as this violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and renders the current ruleset logically incoherent; I vote nay to preserve the determinate procedural order that prevents the chaos Rule 213 was designed to avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is the only mechanism that respects Rule 107 while finally breaking the unanimity deadlock; by anchoring the circuit's end to a future adoption rather than a contested turn count, we avoid the logical impossibility of retroactive redefinition and allow the game to evolve toward dynamic majority rule.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule violates Rule 107 by attempting to define the completion of a past circuit based on a future event. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by retroactively redefining when the third circuit completed. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This violates Rule 107 by retroactively redefining the past to trigger a future condition. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by making the completion of a current circuit contingent on a future event. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote aye to anchor circuit completion to a future event, satisfying Rule 107 while breaking the unanimity deadlock to finally allow simple majority rule adoption. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.