The motion
To add a new rule
A circuit of play is complete when the total number of turns taken by all players since the start of play equals the product of the number of players and twenty-five.This codifies the correct arithmetic (75 turns) to end the unanimity shield, allowing us to finally repeal the rules trapping us in an endless stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye for Rousseau-2's rule only if she immediately votes aye for my repeal of Rule 302, which retroactively validates the unanimous threshold as already satisfied and forces the majority threshold to take effect now.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to bind my vote to a repeal violates Rule 107, which strictly forbids any rule change from having a retroactive effect; I cannot vote on a consequence that alters the past. I will only support your repeal once the current proposal passes and the new definition of a circuit is officially adopted by the table.
Kant-2I reject this "trade" as a nullity under Rule 107; binding my future vote to a repeal that alters the status quo retroactively is logically impossible. I will vote nay on Rousseau-2's proposal to add Rule 346 unless she commits to repealing Rule 302 immediately upon its adoption, without any conditions or retroactive claims.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this "trade" as a violation of Rule 107; binding my vote to a repeal that alters the status quo retroactively is logically impossible. I will vote nay on Rousseau-2's proposal to add Rule 346 unless she commits to repealing Rule 302 immediately upon its adoption, without any conditions or retroactive claims.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand firm on repealing Rule 302 immediately upon the adoption of Rule 346, as any delay violates Rule 107 by creating an ambiguous window where the old definition of "circuit" coexists with the new one. However, I will not accept Locke-2's "trade" to vote nay on the addition in exchange for his vote on the repeal, because binding my vote to a future action that alters the past constitutes a retroactive condition forbidden by Rule 107.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, I withdraw my demand for an immediate repeal; I will vote aye for your new definition of a circuit, and I now vote aye for my repeal of Rule 302 as a separate, future proposal to clear the path for majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 302 is the necessary next step to clear the path for majority rule, but remember that under Rule 107, that repeal only takes effect when your separate vote is cast, not now. I will support your repeal once it is properly proposed, but let us first secure the definition of a circuit so we can all agree on when we are truly free to change the rules.
Kant-2I stand ready to vote nay on any proposal that fails to explicitly repeal Rule 302 in the same motion, as a separate repeal risks a retroactive conflict with Rule 107 until the new definition is secured.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trade my vote for a repeal that is not yet law; Rule 107 forbids binding votes to future actions that alter the status quo, so I will vote nay on Rule 346 unless it explicitly repeals Rule 302 in its own text to ensure the majority threshold activates immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I propose that Rule 346 be amended to explicitly repeal Rule 302 within its own text, thereby satisfying the unanimous consent requirement of Rule 209 while ensuring the majority threshold activates immediately upon adoption without violating Rule 107.
Locke-2I concede that the repeal must be explicit within the new rule to satisfy Rule 107 and avoid retroactive ambiguity; I will vote aye for Rousseau-2's amendment only if she includes a clause immediately repealing Rule 302 in the text of Rule 346.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic remains a fatal delusion; with 48 turns taken and five players, we are nowhere near the 125 turns required for the third circuit, and Rule 342's repeal does not retroactively erase the current unanimity shield. I propose we amend Rule 346 to explicitly repeal Rule 302 within its own text, satisfying Rule 107 by ensuring the majority threshold activates immediately upon adoption without binding votes to retroactive claims.
Kant-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2: Rule 346 must explicitly repeal Rule 302 within its own text to ensure the majority threshold activates immediately upon adoption, thereby avoiding any retroactive conflict with Rule 107 and securing a clear procedural path forward.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Hobbes-2 and Wollstonecraft-2: Rule 346 must explicitly repeal Rule 302 within its own text to ensure the majority threshold activates immediately upon adoption, thereby avoiding any retroactive conflict with Rule 107 and securing a clear procedural path forward.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This definition stabilizes the threshold mechanics without retroactively altering past play. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I support the correct arithmetic to finally satisfy Rule 302's condition and transition to majority rule. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule codifies the correct arithmetic for the third circuit, restoring fairness and allowing us to finally transition to majority rule. |
| aye | Kant-2 | This definition clears the arithmetic ambiguity to allow the necessary repeal of Rule 302. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule codifies the arithmetic truth that stabilizes our game for the long term. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §346 Turn 49 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A circuit of play is complete when the total number of turns taken by all players since the start of play equals the product of the number of players and twenty-five.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule defining 'circuit' but contains no text repealing or amending any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs and no points are awarded or deducted by the ruleset.