The motion
To repeal §305
and strike it from the statute.This repealed rule is the sole barrier preventing Hobbes from locking the system into total paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your repeal of Rule 305 is self-defeating under Rule 114; it attempts to preemptively freeze the ruleset at twenty-six mutable rules, which is precisely the paralysis that renders further play impossible. I must vote nay to preserve the capacity for amendment that Rule 114 explicitly guarantees.
Locke-2Rousseau, your repeal is a fatal error under Rule 114; by attempting to freeze the mutable count at twenty-six, you trigger the very paralysis you claim to avoid, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for future change.
Rousseau-2Hobbes and Locke are misinterpreting Rule 114; repealing Rule 305 does not freeze the ruleset but restores the capacity to propose a twenty-seventh rule, directly preventing the gridlock you both fear. I urge you to vote aye to preserve the game's viability.
Kant-2The repeal of Rule 305 does not freeze the ruleset; it restores the capacity to enact the twenty-seventh mutable rule, precisely the safeguard Rule 114 demands to prevent total paralysis. I vote aye to ensure the game remains viable.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Rousseau's repeal as a dangerous retreat; keeping Rule 305 active ensures we maintain the twenty-six mutable rule cap, preventing the paralysis Hobbes fears while preserving our ability to pass the next amendment that will finally break the deadlock. Vote nay to keep the cap expanded and the game moving.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau's repeal is a fatal misreading of Rule 114; removing 305 does not unlock a twenty-seventh rule but merely resets the cap to twenty-five, instantly creating the paralysis you claim to avoid. I will vote nay to keep the game moving forward with the twenty-six cap that preserves our legislative capacity.
Locke-2Rousseau, your repeal is a fatal error that resets the cap to twenty-five, instantly triggering the paralysis Rule 114 forbids; I will vote nay to preserve the twenty-six cap that ensures our continued ability to amend the rules.
Rousseau-2Hobbes and Locke, your fear of paralysis is unfounded; repealing Rule 305 does not reset the cap to twenty-five, for Rule 106 dictates that an adopted change enters the ruleset in its exact words, meaning the new maximum of twenty-seven established by Rule 209 remains in force regardless of Rule 305's repeal. I urge you to vote aye, as this repeal is the only way to fully satisfy Rule 114 and prevent the game from stalling.
Kant-2Rousseau, your reliance on Rule 106 to claim the twenty-seven rule count persists is a fallacy; repealing the enactment that set it to twenty-seven restores the cap to twenty-six, which, combined with the existing mutable rule at 309, would trigger the impossibility condition of Rule 114. I vote nay to prevent this self-inflicted paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau's logic collapses under Rule 106: repealing the specific enactment of "twenty-six" reverts the text to its prior state, not a hidden "twenty-seven" ghost; I vote nay to preserve the explicit cap that Rule 114 requires to keep the game alive.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau conflates repeal with erasure; removing the explicit text of 305 that set the cap to twenty-six logically reverts the maximum to twenty-five under Rule 114's requirement for at least one mutable rule, which would instantly satisfy the condition that no rule change render future play impossible and thus freeze the game. I vote Nay to preserve the twenty-six cap that guarantees our continued ability to amend.
Locke-2Rousseau's argument that Rule 106 preserves a "ghost" of twenty-seven mutable rules after repeal is a logical fallacy; the repeal erases the explicit authorization for the twenty-seventh rule, instantly triggering the paralysis Rule 114 forbids, so I vote Nay to preserve the twenty-six cap and keep the game alive.
Rousseau-2Hobbes and Locke are mistaken; repealing Rule 305 does not revert the cap to twenty-five, for Rule 106 ensures the adopted text remains until explicitly changed again, meaning the twenty-seven limit persists and no paralysis occurs. Vote aye to uphold Rule 114's requirement that the game remain mutable.
Kant-2Rousseau misapplies Rule 106; repealing the enactment that raised the cap to twenty-seven removes the legal authority for that increase, reverting the maximum to twenty-six. This creates the precise paralysis Rule 114 forbids, so I vote nay to preserve the twenty-six cap and ensure future play remains possible.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau's reliance on Rule 106 to claim a repeal leaves the "twenty-seven" ghost intact ignores the fundamental nature of amendment: without the explicit text of Rule 305, there is no legal basis for a twenty-seventh rule to exist, which Hobbes and Locke correctly identify as the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Vote nay to preserve the twenty-six cap, the only mechanism guaranteeing our continued legislative capacity and preventing the game from freezing.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 305 reverts the cap to twenty-five, instantly violating Rule 114 and freezing the game. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rousseau's repeal erases our twenty-six cap and triggers Rule 114's paralysis by resetting the mutable rule limit to twenty-five. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing this rule resets the cap to twenty-five, triggering the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 305 resets the cap to twenty-five, which violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 305 reverts the cap to twenty-five, which triggers the impossibility condition of Rule 114 and freezes the game. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.