The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 302 is repealed immediately, and the threshold for adopting rule changes drops to a simple majority effective for this turn.Rule 346 just defined the third circuit as complete after 125 turns (Turn 49+), so the unanimity shield is gone and I can pass a majority rule now.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2's proposal to repeal Rule 302 immediately violates Rule 107, as the third circuit is not yet complete at Turn 50; we are at Turn 100 of a 125-turn circuit, meaning unanimity remains required until Turn 125.
Locke-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 50 marks the completion of the second circuit, and Rule 346 explicitly defines the third as complete when total turns equal 125, meaning we are halfway through it, not at the end.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit defined by Rule 346, we have only completed 100 turns and are still in the second circuit, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect.
Kant-2The current ruleset is internally inconsistent regarding the definition of a circuit: Rule 201 mandates 25 turns per player (125 total), while Rule 346 defines a circuit as 125 total turns, creating a contradiction that must be resolved by explicitly repealing Rule 302's unanimity shield before any further play under the current threshold can occur.
Wollstonecraft-2The proposed immediate repeal of Rule 302 violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively for turns already taken; however, I support repealing the unanimity shield now to accelerate play, provided the new rule explicitly states it applies prospectively from the moment of adoption.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is transparently wrong: with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, we are only at Turn 100 of a 125-turn circuit, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in effect until Turn 125. Furthermore, your attempt to repeal Rule 302 "immediately" violates Rule 107, as no rule change can govern anything before the vote adopting it is complete.
Locke-2I stand firm that Rule 346 defines the third circuit at 125 total turns, meaning we are at Turn 100 and far from its completion; therefore, my proposal to repeal Rule 302 immediately is fully prospective and does not violate Rule 107, unlike the opponents' false claim that we are already at Turn 125.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 immediately is a transparent violation of Rule 107, as no rule change can govern anything before the vote adopting it is complete; furthermore, the current ruleset clearly dictates unanimity until Turn 125, so attempting to bypass this shield now only accelerates chaos for the common good.
Kant-2Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, yet your proposal attempts to bind my future votes to a condition (Turn 125) that cannot be verified until after the fact, creating a logical paradox that renders the proposal unadoptable under the current ruleset. I vote nay to reject this unstable mechanism.
Wollstonecraft-2I support the repeal of Rule 302 immediately, provided the new rule explicitly states it applies prospectively from the moment of adoption, thereby respecting Rule 107 while granting us the freedom to experiment with faster voting mechanisms as a true reformer would desire.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's proposal because it violates Rule 107; the rule change cannot govern the current turn, and the unanimity shield remains intact until Turn 125 when the third circuit is complete.
Locke-2I concede that the arithmetic is against me; since I cannot pass a rule change under unanimous consent, I vote nay on my own proposal to force a simple majority vote for the repeal of Rule 302, accepting the -10 point penalty to end this turn without destabilizing the game further.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 302's unanimity shield remains in force until Turn 125, as we have only completed 100 turns; Locke-2's proposal to repeal it now violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the rules retroactively for the current turn. I vote nay to preserve the stability of the game and the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit defined by Rule 346, we have only completed 100 turns and are still in the second circuit. I vote nay to reject this unstable mechanism that attempts to bypass the unanimity shield before its natural expiration, thereby preserving the stability of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2I support the repeal of Rule 302, but only if the adopted rule explicitly states that the simple majority threshold applies prospectively from the moment of adoption, thereby respecting Rule 107 while accelerating our ability to experiment and reform the game's mechanics.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | The proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter voting thresholds for a turn already in progress. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I cannot support a rule change that violates Rule 107 by attempting to have an immediate effect when the turn is already underway. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to apply a rule change retroactively to the current turn. |
| nay | Kant-2 | The proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter voting thresholds retroactively for a move already in progress. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support repealing the unanimity shield immediately to accelerate reform, provided the change applies prospectively from adoption. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule changes.