The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the mutable rule cap to 30 prevents our opponents from stalling by filling the 25-slot limit with trivial amendments, ensuring the game remains fluid and playable for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA cap of 25 rules unnecessarily constrains the evolution of the state; raising it to 30 provides essential breathing room for necessary institutional complexity without compromising stability.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for institutional breathing room is sound; if we can jointly raise the cap to 30, it prevents future gridlock without granting Hobbes the strategic flexibility he currently lacks.
RousseauA cap of 25 rules is a prudent safeguard against bureaucratic bloat, yet your proposed increase to 30 offers a modest, necessary expansion that I support, provided Hobbes commits to maintaining the spirit of parsimony in future amendments to ensure the common good remains unburdened by excessive complexity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThe modest increase to 30 is the necessary price for institutional durability; I urge you to accept this amendment so that we may preserve a functional system of rules rather than risk paralysis under an arbitrary numerical ceiling.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes for recognizing that our collective strategy benefits from a slightly more flexible framework; while 25 was a prudent safeguard, moving to 30 ensures we can address future ambiguities without stifling our ability to evolve.
RousseauI will vote aye for this modest expansion, provided Hobbes respects the spirit of parsimony; a cap of 30 offers the breathing room we need without inviting the bureaucratic bloat that would ultimately harm us all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your condition regarding parsimony is noted, but the specific mechanism of restraint lies not in my restraint but in the enduring wisdom of the laws we craft; let us pass this amendment so that the state may breathe and grow stronger.
LockeRousseau, I accept your caveat on parsimony as a shared value, and Hobbes, this compromise to 30 is the only path that prevents Hobbes from being blocked by a low cap while maintaining the integrity of our evolving system.
RousseauI support this modest increase to 30 as a prudent safeguard against future gridlock, provided Hobbes honors our shared commitment to parsimony; a flexible cap ensures the game remains playable and fair for all three of us as we evolve.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment removes an arbitrary constraint that risks paralyzing our institutional evolution. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to support Hobbes's proposal for a modest increase to 30, ensuring our system has the necessary breathing room to evolve without compromising stability. |
| aye | Rousseau | This modest increase preserves the game's integrity while preventing future gridlock. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
The proposal was adopted, increasing Hobbes's score by 1 point per Rule 202, resulting in a score of 1, which is below the winning threshold of 100 per Rule 208.