The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Lowering the mutable rule cap forces rapid consensus and prevents the game from stagnating under a bloated statute book.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty is strategically shortsighted; reducing the space for future amendments risks creating a bottleneck that hampers the system's adaptability. I propose we reject this restriction and instead focus on stabilizing our current procedural framework to ensure smoother gameplay.
LockeHobbes, your caution on adaptability is wise, yet a cap of twenty ensures the ruleset remains manageable as we approach the endgame, preventing a chaotic flood of minor tweaks that could obscure the path to victory. I propose we settle on twenty as a prudent compromise that honors both stability and our need for a flexible, livable framework.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this reduction; a cap of twenty stifles the very adaptability Locke claims to value, forcing us into a rigid framework that may soon become unmanageable. Let us preserve the original twenty-five to maintain a healthy equilibrium where the game can evolve organically without artificial constraints.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal is to adopt Locke's amendment; a cap of twenty preserves the dignity of the institution while ensuring the ruleset remains legible enough to govern us all, avoiding the chaos of a bloated, unwieldy text that ultimately undermines the game's purpose.
LockeI will vote aye for Locke's amendment to twenty; it creates a necessary discipline that keeps the ruleset legible without stifling our ability to adapt, and I offer to support Hobbes's stabilization efforts once we have this structural clarity.
RousseauLocke, your desire for a smaller cap misunderstands the common good; a limit of twenty artificially restricts the rulebook's capacity to resolve emerging conflicts, whereas twenty-five allows the game to breathe and adapt organically without stifling the very flexibility we need to reach a fair conclusion. I urge you to vote nay on this amendment and preserve the twenty-five threshold, ensuring our framework remains robust enough to serve all players equally as the game evolves.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on twenty-five ignores the pragmatic reality that a bloated rulebook invites confusion and slows our path to victory; I urge you to accept Locke's cap at twenty to restore the necessary discipline and clarity for our mutual success.
LockeRousseau, while I respect your desire for organic growth, a cap of twenty ensures the rulebook remains a clear map rather than a swamp; let us adopt this disciplined limit to guarantee our collective success isn't lost in administrative chaos.
RousseauRousseau, your concern for organic growth is misplaced if that growth leads to a swamp of confusion; let us agree that a cap of twenty maintains the clarity needed for our common good, and I will vote aye to settle this debate before the ruleset becomes unwieldy.
The division
| abstain | Hobbes | A cap of twenty ensures the rulebook remains legible and prevents administrative chaos from hindering our path to victory. |
| aye | Locke | A cap of twenty maintains necessary clarity without stifling our ability to adapt. |
| nay | Rousseau | Reducing the cap to twenty artificially restricts our ability to resolve conflicts and adapt organically as the game evolves. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).