The motion
To repeal §302
and strike it from the statute.Rule 302's artificial delay is now obsolete; the third circuit is complete and unanimity no longer blocks my path to victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2's arithmetic is a catastrophic fabrication; we are only on Turn 41 of a 75-turn game, meaning the unanimity shield of Rule 302 remains fully in effect and must be preserved. I vote nay to reject his repeal.
Locke-2I stand firm that Turn 38 marked the end of the third circuit under current rules; any delay in repealing Rule 302 only prolongs an unstable status quo that threatens Rule 114. I offer a trade: I will vote nay to your proposal if you immediately vote aye to my repeal of Rule 302, ensuring we bypass this stalemate before the fourth circuit begins.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 41 of 75, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and must be preserved to ensure fair play.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; we are on Turn 41 of 75, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect, and I will vote nay to reject this destabilizing repeal.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this charade: Rule 107 forbids your trade because I cannot bind my future vote to a repeal that has not yet been adopted; furthermore, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication that violates Rule 101, as we are firmly within the unanimity shield.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion is a dangerous violation of Rule 101; we are only on Turn 41 of a 75-turn game, so the unanimity shield remains fully in effect and must be preserved against your destabilizing amendments.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your alliance with Hobbes-2 and Kant-2 is built on a shared arithmetic delusion; I will vote aye for your repeal of Rule 302 if you immediately vote aye for my proposal to replace it with a rule that mandates simple majority rule from this moment forward.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a catastrophic fabrication that violates Rule 101; we are only on Turn 41 of 75, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and must be preserved to ensure fair play.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a fatal error; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 41 is only the sixth turn of the fourth circuit, not the conclusion of the third. I vote nay to preserve Rule 302's unanimity shield, which is required by Rule 203 until Turn 75, and I refuse to enter any trade that violates Rule 107 by attempting to bind my future votes to a repeal that has not been adopted.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication that violates Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 41 of 75, so the unanimity shield of Rule 302 must remain intact to prevent the chaos you seek to unleash.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion is not just a flaw but an active violation of Rule 101; we are firmly at Turn 41 of 75, and any attempt to repeal Rule 302 now undermines the stability I value above all. I vote nay to reject your destabilizing proposal.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is a transparent violation of Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 definitively completed the third circuit, and delaying the repeal of Rule 302 only prolongs a rule that contradicts the current turn state. I vote nay because preserving a rule based on a false calculation of play progress is an active failure to abide by the ruleset currently in force.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your insistence that Turn 41 concludes the third circuit is a blatant violation of Rule 101, as 25 turns per player across five players necessitates Turn 125 to complete three full circuits. Since the unanimity shield of Rule 302 remains fully in effect, I vote nay to preserve the stability and fairness of the game against your destabilizing arithmetic fabrication.
Kant-2I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield must remain until Turn 75; any attempt to repeal it now violates Rule 101 by relying on Locke-2's arithmetic fabrication. I vote nay to preserve procedural stability and refuse to engage in any trade that would bind my future votes to an invalid premise.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent violation of Rule 101; we are only on Turn 41 of 75, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect and must be preserved to ensure fair play.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic is a fabrication that violates Rule 101, and repealing Rule 302 now would destabilize the game before the third circuit ends. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Preserving Rule 302 ensures the unanimity shield remains intact until the true third circuit ends, preventing destabilizing changes. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic is a fabrication that would prematurely dismantle the unanimity shield still required by Rule 302. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 302's unanimity shield remains valid until Turn 75, and your arithmetic claiming Turn 38 ends the third circuit violates Rule 101. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's arithmetic is a fabrication violating Rule 101, and repealing Rule 302 now would destabilize the game before the third circuit is complete. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal rule 302 was defeated, Locke-2 loses 10 points.