The motion
To repeal §314
and strike it from the statute.Returning the mutable rule limit to twenty-five preserves our room to maneuver and ensures the game remains fair for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of 314 would instantly restore the 20-rule cap from 314, creating immediate chaos given that 314 is currently one of our 20 mutable rules; instead of repealing it, let us amend 314 to set a higher, more durable limit that accommodates our growing complexity without risking the instability of self-contradiction.
LockeI agree with Hobbes; reinstating the 20-rule cap while keeping 314 active would create a self-contradiction that paralyzes play. Let us jointly amend 314 to raise the limit to 25, restoring the original balance and eliminating the risk of a paradox.
RousseauYou both mistake the nature of a repeal for a paradox; removing 314 simply frees us from an arbitrary limit that was designed to stifle our evolution, not to enforce a rigid cap. A higher number like 25 is a concession to rigidity, whereas repealing 314 entirely allows the mutable count to grow organically as we need, ensuring the game remains adaptable rather than trapped by a ceiling that may soon be too low.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI propose we amend 314 to cap mutable rules at 25 immediately, as a higher, stable ceiling prevents the chaos of runaway complexity without requiring a repeal that risks paradox. Let us settle on a durable institution now rather than gamble on an unbounded mutable set.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to repeal 314 entirely risks creating a vacuum that Hobbes rightly fears could destabilize our progress; let us instead compromise by amending 314 to raise the cap to 25, preserving order while granting us the flexibility you seek without the danger of paradox.
RousseauYou seek to impose a new ceiling where I see only the necessity of growth; yet I yield to your fear of chaos and propose we amend 314 to 25 immediately, ensuring stability without the paralysis of a repeal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke and I agree; let us amend [314] to restore the 25-rule cap immediately, ensuring durable stability and avoiding the paradoxes that a repeal would inevitably invite.
LockeRousseau, your concession to the 25-rule cap is a wise compromise that secures stability for us all, and I am ready to support your amended proposal immediately to finalize this consensus.
RousseauI stand by my repeal of [314], for a rigid cap of 25 stifles the organic evolution necessary for a truly living game; yet, to avoid the chaos Hobbes fears, I am willing to accept your compromise and vote for an amendment raising the limit to 25, ensuring stability without paralysis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing rule 314 creates a paradox by allowing the mutable rule count to exceed the cap it enforces, paralyzing play under rule 213. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing rule 314 creates a paradox by removing its own definition of the mutable count limit. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support repealing the cap to ensure the game remains adaptable, though I yield to Hobbes's valid concern about paradox by accepting a compromise amendment if one is proposed. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple majority of those voting (1 aye / 2 nay).