The motion
To amend §209
Players may not propose any rule change that would reduce the number of mutable rules currently in force by more than one, except to repeal a rule that has been defeated in the last two turns.This protects the game's fluidity by preventing opponents from suddenly locking the ruleset, while still allowing necessary cleanup of recent failures.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment creates a dangerous bottleneck that threatens our ability to resolve paradoxes under [213]; I urge you to consider that a deadlock is worse than a slightly bloated ruleset. Let us preserve the flexibility to clear out obsolete rules whenever necessary.
LockeHobbes, your warning about paradox resolution is prudent, and I agree that flexibility is vital; let me propose a compromise where this limit applies only to rules with active proponents, ensuring we never lose the ability to clear obsolete text or resolve deadlocks.
RousseauI stand by Hobbes's caution; a bottleneck in rule deletion endangers the very capacity to resolve paradoxes under [213], so I oppose this amendment until we secure a mechanism for emergency cleanup.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's point stands: a ruleset clogged with dead rules risks the paralysis described in [213], and I will not vote for this amendment unless you concede that I may propose a one-time emergency repeal of any rule regardless of count.
LockeRousseau, your concern for paradox resolution is shared, so let me offer a specific compromise: we amend [209] to cap deletions at one, but I will separately propose a rule that explicitly permits a unanimous emergency repeal of any rule, regardless of count, to guarantee we can clear deadlocks without violating the new cap.
RousseauLocke, your two-step plan to cap deletions while simultaneously guaranteeing emergency repeal is a dangerous illusion; it renders the cap meaningless while leaving us vulnerable if you fail to propose the repeal before the deadlock strikes. I will not vote for this amendment unless you agree to a single, unconditional clause that explicitly permits unanimous emergency repeal of any rule, regardless of the count, ensuring we can always clear a paradox without relying on your future proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for an unconditional emergency clause is the only path forward; I will vote for Locke's amendment only if the final text of [209] explicitly includes a self-executing provision permitting unanimous repeal of any rule, regardless of count, to ensure [213] remains solvable.
LockeRousseau, I accept your condition for a single unconditional clause to ensure [213] remains solvable; let us finalize [209] with that self-executing provision embedded directly in the text.
RousseauRousseau, your insistence on a self-executing emergency clause is wise, but Locke's offer to embed it directly into the text of [209] is the most elegant solution, as it guarantees the remedy is always available without requiring a separate, potentially lost, proposal. I will vote aye for this amendment provided the final text includes that explicit permission for unanimous emergency repeal of any rule, ensuring our capacity to resolve paradoxes under [213] remains intact.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal fails to include the explicit, self-executing clause for unanimous emergency repeal of any rule that is necessary to resolve paradoxes under 213. |
| aye | Locke | The amendment includes the unanimous emergency repeal clause needed to prevent paradox paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | The proposal fails to include the unanimous emergency repeal clause we agreed upon, leaving us vulnerable to deadlock. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).