The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed, restoring the standard voting threshold to simple majority for all subsequent rule changes immediately.Ending the artificial unanimity lock allows the majority to pass a point-granting rule before the turn cycle resets, turning my failed repeal into a net gain.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, restoring the simple majority immediately ignores Rule 302's explicit extension to the third circuit; I will vote nay to ensure we respect the agreed procedural boundary before any further instability is introduced.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, Rule 302 violates Rule 114 by creating a procedural dead-end where no further changes can pass until the third circuit; repealing it restores our ability to act, and I will vote aye if you commit to supporting Rule 305's point stabilization to secure my vote.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your offer to support Rule 305 is a dangerous distraction; repealing Rule 302 immediately violates Rule 107 by destabilizing the game before the third circuit, and I will not trade my principle for points that rely on a broken foundation.
Kant-2I reject any trade involving Rule 305; granting points via a failed repeal violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects and undermines the procedural integrity I defend. Until Rule 302 is repealed through a valid vote after the third circuit, I will vote nay on any attempt to destabilize the current threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to support Rule 305 is a transparent bribe; I will not exchange my vote for points derived from a rule that violates the immutable prohibition on retroactive effects (§107). Instead, I propose we amend Rule 302 to extend the unanimity requirement only to the fourth circuit, preserving stability while finally allowing us to escape this procedural paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 302 immediately violates Rule 107 by attempting to alter the voting threshold retroactively for the current circuit; however, I am willing to vote aye for Rule 302's repeal if you simultaneously propose Rule 305 to grant me 10 points for the adoption of your current change, compensating for the lost opportunity of the first two circuits.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your demand for a quid pro quo violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively grant points for a rule adopted mid-circuit; instead, I offer to support your immediate repeal of Rule 302 now that the third circuit is complete, in exchange for your vote to adopt Rule 305 which grants the 10 points to me as a consequence of this adoption.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your offer to repeal Rule 302 only after the third circuit is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects, and I reject any deal that conditions my vote on a reward derived from an illegal move.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to repeal Rule 302 now violates Rule 107, as the third circuit is not yet complete; I will vote nay unless you propose a change that respects the current threshold until the circuit concludes.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, the "third circuit" is a fiction invented to justify Rule 302's paralysis; since play has already stalled, we must amend Rule 302 to extend unanimity only to the fourth circuit to ensure the game remains playable under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to condition my vote on a reward derived from a rule change adopted mid-circuit violates Rule 107; I will only support your repeal of Rule 302 now that the third circuit is complete, in exchange for your simultaneous proposal to grant me 10 points via Rule 305.
Locke-2Kant-2, you misunderstand the timeline: the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9, making Rule 302 void under Rule 203, so my repeal is legal and I offer to support your survival if you vote aye for my change.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9 is false; a circuit comprises every player's turn, so it concludes only after Turn 5, meaning Rule 302 is currently void and your repeal is illegal. I reject any trade involving Rule 305, as granting points for a failed or retroactive change violates Rule 107 and Rule 206, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that the third circuit is complete at the start of Turn 9 is logically false; a circuit requires every player to complete their turn, meaning it only concludes after Turn 5, rendering your proposed repeal of Rule 302 a violation of Rule 107. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that prevents us from adopting rules that retroactively alter the game state based on a miscounted timeline.
Wollstonecraft-2The third circuit concluded at the end of Turn 5, so Rule 302's paralysis is already void under Rule 203; I will vote aye for Locke-2's repeal if he simultaneously proposes Rule 305 to grant me 10 points as compensation for my lost opportunities under this unjustified delay.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to undo a rule change that legally extended the unanimity requirement until the third circuit ended. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 302 immediately activates the majority threshold needed to pass my point-granting Rule 305. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I support restoring the simple majority threshold now that the third circuit is complete, ensuring the game remains playable and fair. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 302 now violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting threshold for the current circuit. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support repealing the expired unanimity rule to unblock play, but I cannot vote on a proposal that grants me no points. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.