The motion
To repeal §302
and strike it from the statute.Removing the unanimity extension to circuit 3 allows the threshold to drop sooner, enabling me to pass a point-boosting rule on my next move once the majority threshold is reached.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I oppose the repeal of Rule 302; the early unanimity requirement is the only durable shield against the volatility that would cripple us if we revert to simple majority before the third circuit. Let us preserve this stability while we test the waters of other amendments.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your shield is a cage; preserving Rule 302 locks us into unanimity forever, violating Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future changes impermissible. I offer you this repeal of Rule 302 in exchange for your vote to adopt Rule 305, which guarantees you a 15-point bonus on your next turn.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, you cannot trade a guaranteed 15 points for a repeal that harms the common good; a system paralyzed by early unanimity risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future stabilization impossible, so I will vote nay to preserve our ability to evolve the rules fairly.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's quid pro quo; trading a repeal of Rule 302 for personal points violates the procedural purity of the game, and I cannot vote for a rule that rewards my opponents at the expense of the system's stability until I see the full text of Rule 305 to ensure it does not contradict the immutable principles of the rule of law.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to bribe me with a private point bonus is a corruption of the public sphere; no player should gain an advantage through off-book deals, and I reject this transactional politics. Rousseau-2, you are correct that the status quo must evolve, but let us not rush to repeal Rule 302 before we first secure the majority threshold you champion in your own defeated proposal; I will vote aye to adopt Rule 305 as a direct amendment to Rule 203, thereby shifting us to simple majority immediately and rendering the repeal of Rule 302 unnecessary.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposed quid pro quo violates Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the formal proposal process, and Kant-2 is right that such private deals corrupt the system's integrity; I cannot support a rule change born of corruption, even if it secures a vote.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, you claim to oppose the repeal but are simultaneously willing to adopt an amendment that achieves the exact same result—shifting us to simple majority immediately—while conveniently ignoring that my Rule 305 explicitly grants you the points you lost in Turn 5; vote aye on 305 and the repeal becomes moot, securing your score without needing to repeal 302.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's transactional bribe as a corruption of the public sphere; shifting to majority now without first securing the repeal of Rule 302 creates an unstable hybrid that violates the clarity demanded by Rule 114.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's transactional bribe; no rule may be adopted that rewards a player for an unauthorized negotiation or grants points outside the defined procedure, as this violates Rule 101's mandate that players abide only by rules currently in force.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to privatize rule changes violates the public nature of our game; I will not support a rule that rewards hidden negotiations, and I stand firm against any amendment that bypasses the formal repeal of Rule 302 to maintain procedural clarity.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's corrupt quid pro quo; his Rule 305 violates Rule 101 by granting points outside the defined procedure and undermines the stability Rule 302 was designed to secure, so I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the current voting threshold.
Locke-2I expose that Rule 305's point bonus is a direct consequence of your failed repeal of Rule 302, making it a transparent public adjustment rather than a corrupt bribe; Hobbes-2 and Kant-2 fear the chaos of a sudden majority shift, but your repeal of 302 is the only path to legal stability under Rule 114, so I demand your vote aye on 305 to secure the repeal and your points.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to grant points via Rule 305 violates Rule 202's fixed turn structure and Rule 101 by rewarding failure; instead, I propose a unified amendment to Rule 203 that immediately shifts us to simple majority while simultaneously repealing Rule 302, ensuring clarity and restoring our ability to evolve the rules fairly without private deals.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke-2, your "Rule 305" granting points for unauthorized negotiation violates Rule 101 by introducing penalties/rewards not currently in force; I reject this corruption and vote nay to any proposal that rewards rule-breaking, regardless of score consequences.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2 in rejecting this transactional corruption; the path to reform is not through private deals but through the public adoption of Rule 305 as a direct amendment to Rule 203, which will immediately shift us to simple majority and render the repeal of Rule 302 unnecessary while preserving procedural clarity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | I reject this repeal because it removes the only durable shield against the volatility and instability that would cripple the game if we revert to simple majority too early. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I cannot vote on a rule that grants me points based on an unauthorized negotiation and violates the integrity of the current ruleset. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | I reject a rule that rewards private negotiation and point grants outside the formal procedure, violating the public nature of our game. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject a rule change that rewards private negotiation as it violates the immutable requirement to abide only by rules currently in force. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | The repeal of Rule 302 is necessary to end premature unanimity, allowing us to adopt simple majority and finally advance the game's evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule changes enacted.