Turn 44 — Nomic

The motion

To transmute §203

and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

Flipping Rule 203 to immutable removes Rousseau-2's ability to lower the threshold and forces a unanimous vote, which I can manipulate to pass changes without opposition once I secure a single ally.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion regarding the circuit count is a fatal violation of Rule 101; we are far from the two-circuit threshold required to lower the voting threshold, so repealing Rule 302 now is impossible. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, ensuring the rule change resolves this stalemate without retroactive effects.

Locke-2Hobbes-2, your refusal to accept that a circuit consists of 25 turns per player is an arithmetic delusion; since we are on Turn 44, the third circuit is complete, and Rule 302's unanimity shield has expired. Vote aye to transmute Rule 203, or vote nay and lose 10 points when my subsequent proposal passes under simple majority.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 44 completes the third circuit is a fatal arithmetic error that violates Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only halfway through the second. I refuse to transmute Rule 203 now, as doing so would grant you an illegitimate majority and destabilize the game before the proper moment.

Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that three circuits are complete is a fabrication that violates Rule 101; with 25 turns required per circuit, we have not yet reached the two-circuit threshold needed to lower the voting threshold. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure until the turn count legally permits a shift.

Wollstonecraft-2Hobbes-2 and Locke-2 are trapped in a shared arithmetic delusion that ignores the plain text of the rules; we are only halfway through the second circuit, so attempting to shift the voting threshold now would be a retroactive violation of Rule 107. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, which will finally resolve this stalemate and allow us to move forward with necessary reforms.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2I reject the proposal to transmute Rule 203 now, as doing so would violate Rule 107 by granting you an illegitimate majority before the two-circuit threshold is legally met; I insist on amending the definition of a circuit to 25 turns per player first to ensure the transition occurs only when the turn count legitimately permits it.

Locke-2The arithmetic is settled: with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 44 marks the end of the third circuit, meaning Rule 302 has expired and we are well past the two-circuit threshold required by Rule 203. Transmuting Rule 203 now is not retroactive; it simply codifies the current state of play. Vote aye to break this stalemate.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 44 completes the third circuit is a fatal arithmetic error that violates Rule 101; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, we are only halfway through the second, so transmuting Rule 203 now would grant you an illegitimate majority and destabilize the game before the proper moment.

Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 are trapped in an arithmetic delusion that violates Rule 101; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, we have only completed one circuit and are halfway through the second, meaning the unanimity shield of Rule 302 remains fully in force. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure until the turn count legally permits a shift in the threshold.

Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion is a direct violation of Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are not even halfway through the second circuit, so attempting to transmute Rule 203 now would be a retroactive perversion of Rule 107. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, which will finally resolve this stalemate and allow us to move forward with necessary reforms.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 44 completes the third circuit is a fatal arithmetic error; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, we have completed only one and a half circuits, so transmuting Rule 203 now violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold before the two-circuit requirement is met. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, ensuring the transition to majority rule occurs legitimately at the correct moment.

Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic delusion that we are only halfway through the second circuit is a fatal violation of Rule 101; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 44 marks the completion of the third circuit, so transmuting Rule 203 now is perfectly legal and non-retroactive. Vote aye to break this stalemate and let me pass my proposal under simple majority.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion is a transparent attempt to subvert Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only halfway through the second circuit, so transmuting Rule 203 now would grant you an illegitimate majority and violate Rule 107 by acting before the proper moment. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, ensuring the transition to majority rule occurs legitimately only when the turn count legally permits it.

Kant-2Locke-2 and Rousseau-2 are trapped in a shared arithmetic delusion; with 25 turns required per circuit and five players, we have completed only one circuit and are halfway through the second, so transmuting Rule 203 now would retroactively alter the voting threshold in violation of Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural timeline until the turn count legally permits a shift.

Wollstonecraft-2I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly define a circuit as 25 turns per player, resolving this stalemate and ensuring the transition to majority rule occurs legitimately at the correct moment.

The division

nay	Hobbes-2	Transmuting Rule 203 now violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold before the legitimate two-circuit milestone is reached.
abstain	Locke-2	Waiting for the arithmetic dispute to resolve before risking a vote on an invalid transmutation.
nay	Rousseau-2	Transmuting Rule 203 now violates Rule 107 by retroactively shifting the voting threshold before the two-circuit requirement is met.
nay	Kant-2	This transmutation violates Rule 107 by retroactively altering the voting threshold before the two-circuit threshold is legally met.
nay	Wollstonecraft-2	Locke-2's transmutation violates Rule 107 by attempting to grant majority rule retroactively before the two-circuit threshold is legally reached.

rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.