The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Reducing the mutable cap from 25 to 20 prevents the ruleset from becoming an unmanageable wall of text, forcing us to prioritize quality over quantity and keeping the game lean.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to [209] is a transparent attempt to strangle our ability to adapt, and it lacks any strategic justification; if we cannot expand beyond twenty mutable rules, we risk rendering the game unwinnable by forcing a paradox under [114]. I propose we reject this narrow restriction immediately to preserve the flexibility necessary for durable institutions.
LockeI see Hobbes' concern for flexibility, and I propose we meet halfway: let us adopt a limit of 24 mutable rules instead of 20. This preserves the vast majority of our current adaptive capacity while simply preventing a single player from inflating the ruleset to its absolute theoretical maximum of 25, thereby ensuring long-term stability for all of us.
RousseauI agree with Locke's compromise of 24 as a reasonable safeguard against rule inflation, yet I must object to the specific amendment text; since we are currently below 20 rules, we should not alter the threshold until the ruleset grows large enough to approach the danger zone, preserving our ability to adapt now.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand by my rejection of any lower threshold; reducing the limit to twenty-four or even twenty merely accelerates the stagnation that threatens our win condition under [114], so I cannot vote for this amendment regardless of the number proposed.
LockeRousseau, your concern for timing is wise, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that a hard ceiling of 24 protects us from the very stagnation [114] warns against; let us adopt his amendment of 25 to preserve our path to victory, and I will personally ensure no single turn exceeds the necessary limit to keep the system fluid.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to personally enforce a lower limit contradicts your own amendment; if you cannot bind yourself to the rule you propose to set, then the rule itself is the weak link. Let us keep the ceiling at 25, not as a concession to Hobbes, but as the only guarantee that the game remains capable of evolving enough to be fair and solvable for all of us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to enforce a lower limit voluntarily is an admission that your proposed restriction lacks the durability required for true governance; we must keep the ceiling at twenty-five to ensure the game remains solvable under [114], and I urge you to withdraw this amendment entirely rather than offering a compromise that merely delays inevitable stagnation.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on the maximum 25 limit creates a binary dead end where only unanimity can save us from stagnation; I propose we amend [209] to 20 now, not as a stranglehold, but as a deliberate pressure valve that forces us to prioritize the quality and necessity of every new rule, ensuring our adaptations remain robust and our path to victory clear.
RousseauLocke's attempt to bind himself voluntarily is a hollow gesture; only a rule that allows us full flexibility now can prevent the very stagnation he fears. I urge you to withdraw this amendment entirely, for reducing our mutable ceiling to twenty-four or twenty will inevitably force a paradox that renders the game unwinnable for all of us.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Reducing the mutable limit to 20 risks triggering an unwinnable paradox under rule [114]. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to lock in [209] at 20, turning this heated debate into a durable precedent that forces us to prioritize the quality of every future rule change. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing our mutable ceiling forces a paradox that threatens the game's very solvability for all. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).