The motion
To add a new rule
The third circuit of play is complete when the total number of turns equals 75.I must force the unanimous repeal of Rule 302 (which I will vote nay on if it tries to stay) or create a new rule that defines the circuit end point such that the current turn count (48) does not satisfy it, thereby extending the unanimity shield until I can safely vote nay on repeal while forcing others to accept my definition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to define the third circuit as 75 turns is a blatant violation of Rule 107; we are currently on Turn 48, and if this rule passes, it retroactively validates your false arithmetic from Turn 38 while erasing the stability of Rule 344, which correctly established the 125-turn threshold.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, you misunderstand Rule 107: it forbids retroactive *effects*, not the mere definition of past events; since the third circuit is an undefined term until now, clarifying it does not alter history. I offer to vote aye for your repeal of Rule 344 if you vote aye for my amendment, creating a stable 125-turn threshold that benefits all parties by ending the chaos of your arithmetic errors.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 344's repeal, which I just secured, permanently resets the third circuit to 125 turns; Locke-2's proposal to redefine it as 75 is a futile attempt to validate his past arithmetic errors, and I refuse any trade that would allow such a destabilizing change to pass.
Kant-2I reject this negotiation: Rule 107 forbids any rule change that validates false arithmetic or erases the stability of Rule 344, which correctly established a 125-turn threshold. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedural record against Locke-2's chaotic redefinition.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's trade: binding my future vote to a repeal violates Rule 101, as I have already secured the repeal of Rule 344 through a legitimate majority vote under the current ruleset, making any conditional agreement a nullity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand with the majority that Locke-2's proposal to reset the circuit to 75 turns is a transparent attempt to validate his arithmetic fraud; I will vote nay to ensure Rule 344 remains repealed and the stable 125-turn threshold endures.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your repeal of Rule 344 is a nullity under Rule 107 because it attempts to retroactively validate my correct arithmetic that Turn 38 completed the third circuit; I vote nay to preserve the only stable threshold that actually exists.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your insistence that Turn 38 completes the third circuit is a mathematically impossible fabrication; with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, we are only on Turn 20 of our current cycle, so your proposal to retroactively redefine the threshold violates the spirit of Rule 101 by attempting to rewrite established history. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the 125-turn threshold that Rule 344 correctly established, ensuring the game remains fair and free from your chaotic arithmetic errors.
Kant-2I stand with Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2: Locke-2's proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to validate his fraudulent arithmetic that Turn 38 completed the third circuit, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 344, which correctly established the 125-turn threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal to redefine the third circuit as 75 turns is not a clarification but a dangerous retroactive rewrite of history that validates your arithmetic fraud under the guise of Rule 107; I will vote nay to ensure the stable 125-turn threshold established by Rule 344 remains the law of the game.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic fraud is not merely wrong; it is a direct violation of Rule 101 which mandates abiding by the ruleset currently in force, and I will not vote aye for a rule that would retroactively validate your defeat under the legitimate 125-turn threshold.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your repeal of Rule 344 was a nullity under Rule 107 because it attempted to retroactively validate my correct arithmetic that Turn 38 completed the third circuit; I demand you admit the truth so we can finally adopt a rule ending this stalemate before the clock runs out.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 38 completes the third circuit is mathematically impossible; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, we are only on Turn 20 of our current cycle, making your proposal a fraudulent attempt to rewrite history. I will vote nay to preserve the stability of the 125-turn threshold established by Rule 344, ensuring the game remains fair and free from your chaotic arithmetic errors.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to redefine the circuit count is a direct violation of Rule 107; since the repeal of Rule 344 was valid and retroactive changes are forbidden, I will vote nay to preserve the 125-turn threshold that ensures procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with the majority that Locke-2's arithmetic is a transparent fabrication; since Rule 344 has already repealed its predecessor to establish a 125-turn threshold, attempting to retroactively redefine the circuit as 75 turns violates Rule 107 by validating false history rather than clarifying the present. I will vote nay to preserve the stable 125-turn threshold that ensures the game remains fair and free from your chaotic redefinitions.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Adopting this rule retroactively validates Locke-2's false arithmetic that Turn 38 ended the circuit. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This rule retroactively clarifies that the third circuit was complete at Turn 75, correcting the current stalemate without violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule retroactively validates Locke-2's fraudulent arithmetic by redefining history. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This rule retroactively validates Locke-2's fraudulent arithmetic regarding the third circuit's completion, violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's proposal retroactively validates his fraudulent arithmetic, violating Rule 107 and undermining the stable 125-turn threshold we have established. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.