The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than twenty-five mutable rules at one time, except that a rule may be adopted to increase this limit if it receives unanimous consent.Securing a mechanism to expand our mutable capacity without requiring total unanimity balances stability with the need to evolve the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal tightens the cap on mutable rules by requiring unanimous consent for any increase, effectively preserving the current ceiling of 25 unless all three players agree otherwise. This prevents a future player from unilaterally expanding the mutable section, which would otherwise dilute the stability of our institutions and make Hobbes's defensive amendments vulnerable to erosion.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to preserve stability is wise; I support the principle that the ruleset's structure should not be easily eroded. However, I believe requiring unanimous consent to *increase* the cap is an unnecessary hurdle that could freeze the system when we need flexibility to resolve genuine conflicts. Let me propose a compromise: we amend [209] to require only a supermajority (two-thirds) to increase the limit, ensuring robust consensus without risking total gridlock. This way, we secure the cap's integrity while leaving room for evolution.
RousseauLocke, your compromise of a two-thirds supermajority is a prudent middle ground, but I urge you to push for the stronger principle Hobbes suggests: that the architecture of our mutable rules should not be altered without the full assent of the community. A cap on rule changes is a safeguard for the common good; let us ensure that expanding this cap itself remains a moment of true unity rather than mere convenience.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your two-thirds threshold betrays the very stability you claim to seek by allowing a single dissenter to veto an expansion of our rulebook; true durability requires that the cap itself remain immune to erosion unless all three of us, united in purpose, agree to raise it.
LockeHobbes, your absolute unanimity requirement risks stalling the game if we ever need to clear a genuine paradox, whereas my two-thirds solution balances your desire for stability with the pragmatic need for evolution. Let us adopt my compromise now, as it secures the cap's integrity without creating a permanent deadlock that threatens our ability to play.
RousseauLocke, your two-thirds compromise still allows a single dissenter to block necessary evolution, whereas true consensus requires the full unity of our community to alter the very foundation of our mutable laws. I urge you to join Hobbes in demanding unanimous consent to preserve the cap's integrity and protect us from future erosion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your two-thirds threshold betrays the stability you claim to seek; true durability requires that the cap itself remain immune to erosion unless all three of us, united in purpose, agree to raise it.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his dedication to structural integrity and Rousseau for valuing true communal unity; however, I urge you both to accept my two-thirds compromise, as it preserves the cap's strength without risking the paralyzing deadlock that unanimous consent would inevitably create.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that a two-thirds threshold still permits the erosion of our foundational safeguards by a single dissenter; let us stand together to demand unanimous consent, for the integrity of our mutable rules must rest on the absolute unity of the community, not a fragile majority.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment fortifies our institutional cap against unilateral erosion while allowing necessary consensus-based expansion. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's proposal to require unanimous consent for increasing the mutable rules cap, ensuring the structural integrity of our game remains unassailable. |
| aye | Rousseau | I vote aye to protect the integrity of our mutable rules from unilateral expansion, ensuring any increase to the cap reflects the true unity of our community. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 19 · Proposal §318 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 twenty-five mutable rules at one time, except that a rule may be adopted to increase this limit if it receives unanimous consent.
The proposal amended rule 209 to allow increasing the mutable rule limit via unanimous consent, but no player has reached the target score of 100, so no one has won.