The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time, except that a rule may be added to reach exactly 26 mutable rules if adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of eligible voters.This prevents the game from stalling when we hit the 25-rule limit, allowing us to keep evolving the rules while keeping the threshold for such an expansion high to ensure broad consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment introduces unnecessary instability by allowing the mutable count to temporarily exceed its limit; a durable institution must have a clear, unambiguous cap. I propose we reject this and instead focus on establishing a mechanism to reduce the rule count if it ever threatens to reach that dangerous threshold.
LockeHobbes, your concern for stability is shared, but a hard cap risks paralyzing us if we reach 25 without a clear path to expand; my proposal offers that path while retaining a high bar to prevent casual erosion. Rousseau, if you agree this flexibility prevents gridlock, I will gladly accept a further amendment requiring a 75% threshold instead of two-thirds to secure your vote.
RousseauI oppose this amendment because it creates an arbitrary exception that undermines the clarity of Rule [209]; a cap exists to prevent legislative paralysis, yet your proposal allows us to exceed it precisely when we need most to pause and reflect. If we must expand beyond twenty-five, let us do so only through a full transmutation of Rule [209] under unanimous consent, which preserves the integrity of the limit rather than carving a fragile loophole into it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your two-thirds threshold is insufficient to prevent the erosion of our institutional clarity; I urge you to abandon this partial exception entirely in favor of a full transmutation requiring unanimous consent, which alone preserves the durability of Rule 209 without carving fragile loopholes into the rulebook.
LockeRousseau, I appreciate your commitment to the cap's integrity; let me propose we amend your transmutation idea to include a safety clause that allows a single two-thirds vote to *temporarily* exceed the limit only if a unanimous transmutation is immediately scheduled for the next turn, ensuring we avoid paralysis while respecting your concern for procedural durability.
RousseauLocke, your "safety clause" merely complicates the rulebook with a fragile exception that invites further loopholes; if we truly fear paralysis, we should embrace my original proposal to require unanimous consent for any transmutation, ensuring the cap remains a durable shield against our own legislative excesses.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "safety clause" is a dangerous precedent that replaces a clear cap with a complex procedural loophole, inviting endless litigation; I urge you to drop this exception entirely and adopt Rousseau's path of strict unanimity to ensure the limit remains an unyielding shield against legislative excess.
LockeHobbes, I accept your call for durability, but let us not abandon the cap entirely; I propose we amend my suggestion to require a *separate* unanimous vote within the same turn to transmute the rule back to 25, ensuring no permanent breach of the limit while avoiding gridlock.
RousseauLocke, your "safety clause" fractures the very clarity of Rule 209 we seek to preserve; if we must exceed the cap, let us do so only through the rigorous, unanimous transmutation of the rule itself, not by carving a fragile loophole that invites endless debate over its boundaries.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This exception fractures the durability of Rule 209 by carving a fragile loophole into our institutional cap. |
| nay | Locke | I support Rousseau's unanimous transmutation to preserve the cap's integrity rather than carving a fragile loophole. |
| nay | Rousseau | Allowing an exception to the cap creates a fragile loophole that undermines the clarity and durability of Rule 209. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).