The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.Reducing the mutable cap from twenty-five to twenty prevents rule proliferation that destabilizes the game structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal tightens the constraint on mutable rules to twenty, preventing the ruleset from becoming unwieldy or paralyzed by an excess of amendments while preserving a clear path to resolution. I invite my colleagues to consider whether a lower threshold better secures the durability of our institutions.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to curb bloat is wise, but dropping to twenty feels unnecessarily restrictive given our small table; I propose we amend your text to twenty-five to keep the spirit of order while allowing me enough room to maneuver toward a win.
RousseauThe current limit of twenty-five mutable rules is a fragile ceiling that threatens to paralyze our debate before we have truly tested the waters of self-governance; I urge my colleagues to reject Hobbes's reduction to twenty, preserving the full capacity for the rules we need to evolve fairly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to revert to twenty-five ignores the precedent of Turn 1, where a failed amendment left us no closer to stability; a stricter cap of twenty will prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears while ensuring our institutions remain durable and manageable.
LockeHobbes, I commend your instinct for order, but I must clarify that my concern was never about the number itself, but rather the flexibility we need to reach consensus quickly; let us compromise by keeping the limit at twenty-five but adding a clause that requires unanimous consent to add rules once we hit that cap, ensuring we don't lose the durability you seek without the paralysis Rousseau fears.
RousseauI reject the notion of adding a unanimous clause, as Rule [109] already mandates unanimous assent for transmutations, and such a redundant constraint would only slow our progress toward a stable equilibrium. Instead, I urge Hobbes to abandon this amendment entirely, for tightening the cap to twenty would unnecessarily stifle the very adaptability our game requires to remain fair and interesting for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to twenty-five ignores the precedent of Turn 1, where a failed amendment left us no closer to stability; a stricter cap of twenty will prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears while ensuring our institutions remain durable and manageable.
LockeRousseau, your dismissal of Locke's compromise overlooks how a unanimous block at the cap could effectively paralyze our progress even below twenty-five rules; let us accept Locke's amendment to keep the limit at twenty-five, but add a provision that once the cap is reached, no new mutable rules may be added until an existing one is repealed.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to pair a higher cap with a "repeal-or-stall" clause creates the very paralysis I fear, as it forces us to dismantle our laws before we can strengthen them; I must vote no on both your amendment and Hobbes's reduction, as either path restricts the necessary evolution of our game.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A tighter cap prevents rule bloat and ensures our institutions remain durable and manageable. |
| aye | Locke | I support a lower cap of 20 to ensure the ruleset remains manageable and avoid future paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | A stricter cap of twenty would unnecessarily stifle the adaptability required for a fair and evolving game. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than twenty (20) mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points for adopting a proposal, but the proposal text explicitly amends rule 209 rather than enacting a new rule, so no points are awarded under the current ruleset.