The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a fixed number of points, provided the proposed rule change does not amend rule 202 itself.Prevents rule 202 from being recursively amended to alter the scoring mechanism for the very act of amending it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesFraming a rule to forbid its own amendment creates the very self-contradiction Rule 213 warns against; a measured amendment to clarify that 202 governs only the *procedural* act of proposing, not the *substantive* content of the amendment, would preserve stability without inviting collapse.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to prevent self-referential loops is prudent, yet your specific text risks triggering Rule 213's paradox procedures by explicitly forbidding the amendment of its own enacting clause. Instead of a blanket prohibition that invites chaos, let us adopt a targeted amendment clarifying that 202 governs the *procedural mechanism* of proposing, while explicitly preserving the ability to alter 202's own text via future rule changes—a distinction that maintains stability without risking collapse.
RousseauI agree that a blanket prohibition invites the paradox Hobbes fears, yet Locke's proposed clarification still risks destabilizing the very mechanism of rule-making by allowing the proposal of a change to 202 to be debated under 202 itself. To preserve the common good and avoid the paralysis of Rule 213, I propose we instead amend 202 to state that a proposal amending 202 must be adopted by unanimous consent, thereby securing stability without triggering a logical collapse.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to explicitly preserve 202's amendability is prudent and avoids the self-contradiction I feared, but I urge you to extend this clarification to rule 302 as well; without such symmetry, the unanimity exception for 203 could be weaponized to destabilize the very threshold we are discussing. I am prepared to support Locke's amendment provided he agrees to include this symmetrical safeguard for rule 302 in the same text.
LockeLocke, your distinction between procedural mechanism and substantive content is exactly the kind of clarity we need to avoid the paradox Hobbes rightly fears; I support your amendment and will add my vote, provided we also adopt the symmetrical safeguard for Rule 302 that Hobbes has generously offered to facilitate.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment to preserve the procedural integrity of rule-making, but we must extend this same clarity to rule 302 to prevent a future paradox that would paralyze our ability to resolve voting thresholds.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must dissent from this proposal: while avoiding paradox is prudent, amending Rule 202 now to include a unanimity requirement for its own changes would render Rule 302 redundant and unnecessarily complicate the threshold for altering the voting majority itself, creating a fragile dual-track system that invites future confusion rather than the durable clarity we seek.
LockeI propose we merge Hobbes and Rousseau's concerns into a single amendment that preserves 202's amendability while explicitly requiring unanimous consent *only* for the specific act of transmuting 203's threshold, thereby satisfying Hobbes's symmetry demand without creating the dual-track confusion he fears.
RousseauRousseau, Hobbes, and Locke agree that stability is paramount, yet their proposed amendments introduce unnecessary complexity by creating a dual-track system for rule changes. To truly serve the common good, we should adopt a simpler, more elegant solution: an amendment to 202 that explicitly states "proposals amending 202 or 203 require unanimous consent," thereby resolving all fears of paradox with a single, clear clause that preserves the game's integrity without redundancy.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment unnecessarily restricts the evolution of the rules themselves, contradicting the mutable nature of our system. |
| nay | Locke | This blanket prohibition risks the very paradox Hobbes fears by forbidding the amendment of its own enacting clause. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment forbids its own amendment, creating the self-contradiction Rule 213 warns against and risking game paralysis. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).