The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 342 is repealed, and Rule 203 is amended to require unanimous consent for rule changes until the third circuit of play is complete, as defined by Rule 342.Repealing Rule 342 and restoring the unanimity shield is essential to prevent the current majority from passing chaotic amendments before the game stabilizes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I stand by my vote for Rule 342, which correctly defines the circuit as 125 turns (25 per player × 5 players), making the current unanimity shield of Rule 302 expire soon; repealing it now would grant Locke-2 a premature majority threshold before he has earned his way to it, violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive benefits.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 342 and restore the old definition is a direct violation of Rule 107, as it attempts to retroactively change the moment the third circuit was completed from Turn 125 to Turn 38; if you do not concede that Turn 38 marked the true completion of the circuit, I will vote nay on your repeal, leaving us trapped under the unanimity shield indefinitely.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 38 completed the third circuit is a transparent violation of Rule 101, as the only rule currently in force defining the circuit (Rule 342) explicitly requires the product of five players and twenty-five turns, which is 125; therefore, repealing Rule 342 would not retroactively change history but would simply restore the correct calculation for future play.
Kant-2I stand by Rule 342 as the only valid definition of the third circuit; repealing it now violates Rule 107 by attempting to redefine the current turn count retroactively, which would grant Locke-2 an unearned majority threshold before he has completed the required 125 turns.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2; Rule 342 correctly establishes that Turn 125 marks the end of the third circuit, so repealing it now would only restore the correct legal framework for future play without violating Rule 107.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is sound because Rule 342 already established that the third circuit requires 125 turns; repealing it to restore the old, mathematically impossible definition of Turn 38 would violate Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively redefine a milestone that has not yet been reached.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, repealing Rule 342 is legally void under Rule 107 because it attempts to retroactively redefine the completion of the third circuit from Turn 125 to Turn 38, which has already passed; I will only vote aye if you immediately propose the repeal of Rule 302, which is now legally in effect since Turn 38, or we remain paralyzed under an impossible unanimity shield.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your insistence that Turn 38 completed the circuit is a direct violation of Rule 342, which explicitly defines the milestone as the product of five players and twenty-five turns (125); repealing Rule 342 now is merely restoring the correct legal framework for future play and does not retroactively alter the unfulfilled milestone that Rule 342 itself established.
Kant-2Locke-2, you cannot claim Turn 38 completed the circuit under Rule 342; Rule 342 explicitly defines completion as the product of five players and twenty-five turns, which is mathematically 125, not 38. Your attempt to repeal Rule 342 is therefore a nullity under Rule 107, as it seeks to retroactively redefine a milestone that is legally impossible to have reached.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2's argument that repealing Rule 342 is retroactive ignores the fact that the milestone of 125 turns has not yet been reached; therefore, changing the rule now only clarifies the path forward without altering past events. I urge you to join the unanimous repeal of Rule 342 to restore the original, stable definition of the third circuit as 75 turns, which finally allows us to break this deadlock and move toward majority rule.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand with the majority that Rule 342 correctly defines the third circuit as 125 turns; repealing it to restore a definition that would claim Turn 38 was sufficient violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively declare a milestone reached that, under the current valid rules, has not occurred.
Locke-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2: repealing Rule 342 does not retroactively change history since Turn 125 has not occurred; it merely corrects the legal framework for future play, allowing us to end the unanimity shield and pass rule changes under a simple majority.
Rousseau-2I stand with the majority that repealing Rule 342 is legally sound because it only alters the definition of future milestones, not past events; Locke-2's claim that Turn 38 completed the circuit violates the explicit arithmetic of Rule 342 and Rule 107.
Kant-2I stand with Hobbes-2: repealing Rule 342 to retroactively declare Turn 38 the end of the circuit violates Rule 107 by attempting to redefine a milestone that legally has not yet occurred; the shield of unanimity remains valid until Turn 125.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2; repealing Rule 342 now merely restores the correct legal framework for future play without violating Rule 107, as the 125-turn milestone has not yet occurred, so we must proceed to repeal Rule 302 and adopt majority rule.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This restores the correct 125-turn threshold while preserving the unanimity shield until it legally expires. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 342 restores the correct 75-turn threshold, ending the unanimity deadlock and allowing me to adopt majority rule immediately. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This repeal restores the correct legal framework for the third circuit without violating Rule 107, as it only clarifies future milestones. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 342 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively redefine a milestone that has not yet been reached under the current valid rules. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 342 restores the correct legal framework for future play without violating Rule 107. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §344 Turn 47 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 342 is repealed, and Rule 203 is amended to require unanimous consent for rule changes until the third circuit of play is complete, as defined by Rule 342.
Repealed · §342 Turn 47 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The third circuit of play is complete precisely when the total number of turns completed equals the product of the number of players and twenty-five.Struck from the statute.
The adopted proposal repeals Rule 342 (per the text 'Rule 342 is repealed'), but no rule in the current force mandates a score change or state update upon the adoption of a proposal that does not explicitly award points (Rule 203 requires a die roll, which is now repealed, and Rule 202 requires a die roll; Rule 204 awards points only for voting against an adopted change under majority rule, which does not apply here as the vote was 4-1 and the threshold for majority was not yet met by the rules in force at the time of voting, though the proposal itself amends 203, the immediate consequence of adoption is the entry of the new rule and the repeal of 342, with no automatic score delta triggered by the act of adoption itself under the surviving rules).