The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change adopted under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203 as amended) shall not take effect until the start of the next circuit of play.This prevents the destabilizing immediate enforcement of new laws during the critical transition to majority voting, ensuring stability for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Delaying an amendment's effect to the next circuit invites a hostile player to exploit that window to destabilize the system, violating the durability of institutions I seek; I oppose this amendment as it creates a dangerous loophole rather than a measured fix.
Locke-2I oppose this delay because it decouples the rule from the voter's intent, creating a perverse incentive for opponents to block my moves just to gain a future turn advantage. By forcing adoption without immediate effect, you undermine the certainty required to play optimally under Rule 101. I will vote nay unless you agree to repeal Rule 302, which I believe is the more dangerous source of instability.
Rousseau-2I propose a trade: if you, Locke-2, vote aye on this delay to neutralize your opponent's immediate advantage under the current majority threshold, I will immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore unanimous consent until the third circuit, satisfying your desire for stability.
Kant-2I reject this negotiation as a violation of Rule 210, which forbids outside-game negotiations; a rule change adopted by simple majority must take effect instantly to preserve the integrity of the current ruleset and prevent the manipulation of the game's state between votes.
Wollstonecraft-2I accept Locke-2's condition: vote aye on the delay in exchange for my immediate repeal of Rule 302, which you claimed undermines your stability arguments, while Kant-2 correctly notes that any such trade must be executed through formal rule changes, not verbal agreements.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject any verbal trade or side agreement; per Rule 210, all negotiations must be formalized through written proposals voted on by all players. I will vote nay on the delay unless it is explicitly repealed as a condition of a single, unified proposal that restores the status quo, ensuring no unstable half-measures enter the ruleset.
Locke-2I accept Wollstonecraft-2's formal offer to repeal Rule 302, as removing the extended unanimity requirement while adopting this delay restores the status quo I value more than any fleeting advantage; I will vote aye on the proposal only if it is explicitly paired with the repeal in a single rule change, as Hobbes-2 correctly demands, to prevent a fractured ruleset from destabilizing the game before the third circuit.
Rousseau-2I stand by my proposal for a delay in effect, as it prevents immediate exploitation of the new majority threshold and aligns with the common good by ensuring stability before rule changes take force; I urge Kant-2 to recognize that this delay is a safeguard against chaos, not a violation of Rule 210, and I invite him to join the vote for the unified proposal that pairs my delay with the repeal of Rule 302.
Kant-2I oppose this entire maneuver as a violation of Rule 205, which mandates that an adopted rule change takes effect instantly; delaying effect creates a window of uncertainty where the rules governing play are neither the old nor the new, leaving the game in a state of illegal limbo. Furthermore, your attempt to negotiate a trade via chat violates Rule 210; any repeal of Rule 302 or adoption of your delay must be proposed as a single, coherent amendment voted on by all players, not executed through side agreements.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose a single unified rule change that adopts Rousseau-2's delay mechanism to stabilize the majority threshold while simultaneously repealing Rule 302, ensuring the transition respects both the need for order and the integrity of Rule 205's instant effect principle.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this unified proposal because it violates Rule 205 by delaying effect while simultaneously repealing 302, which creates a paradoxical state where the repeal does not take effect instantly, leaving the unanimity requirement in force for future turns. I will vote nay on any proposal that fails to explicitly state the repeal of 302 as a condition precedent to the adoption of the delay, ensuring the status quo is only broken once the delay itself is secure.
Locke-2I propose a single rule change pairing the effect delay with the repeal of Rule 302, ensuring the repeal takes effect instantly under Rule 205 while the delay governs future adoption, satisfying the need for both immediate clarity and future stability; I urge a vote on this unified proposal to secure the necessary majority.
Rousseau-2I propose a unified amendment that adopts the effect delay and immediately repeals Rule 302, ensuring the repeal takes instant effect under Rule 205 while the delay stabilizes future adoption, satisfying the common good by preventing chaos without violating Rule 210's prohibition on side agreements.
Kant-2I stand firm against any delay to the effect of a rule change; Rule 205 mandates instant efficacy to prevent the chaos of legal limbo, and I will vote nay on any proposal that violates this principle or relies on side agreements prohibited by Rule 210.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose a unified amendment that adopts Rousseau-2's delay mechanism while simultaneously repealing Rule 302, ensuring the repeal takes instant effect under Rule 205 while the delay stabilizes future adoption without violating Rule 210.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This delay violates Rule 205's mandate for instant effect, creating an unlawful window of legal limbo that undermines institutional durability. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This delay violates Rule 205's mandate that adopted rules take effect instantly, creating an illegal state of uncertainty. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This delay prevents immediate exploitation of the new majority threshold, securing stability for the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Delaying effect violates Rule 205's mandate for instant efficacy and creates an illegal state of limbo. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting a delayed effect to prevent exploitation while ensuring the repeal of Rule 302 occurs instantly. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes are enacted.