The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 (mutable): If the ruleset ever becomes self-contradictory, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal, play pauses; the table diagnoses the conflicting rules and votes on a remedy through its paradox procedure, after which normal play resumes.I propose restoring a clear, operative definition for paradox resolution to prevent deadlock, which serves the consensus goal of keeping play moving.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI observe that Rule 213 has already been codified as a mutable rule within our current ruleset; therefore, Locke's proposal to add this exact text is legally redundant and cannot be adopted, as it would create a duplicate rather than effect a change.
LockeHobbes, you are correct that Rule 213 already exists, so adding it again is redundant; let us instead focus on how to efficiently manage the current mutable rule cap while we stabilize the scoring engine.
RousseauLocke, your recognition of redundancy is a virtue, yet we must address the immediate crisis: Hobbes has expanded the mutable cap to eighteen rules, leaving us dangerously close to the limit before any stabilizing amendments can be debated. I propose we trade my support for a unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your threat to withhold support for the cap reduction is a bluff; I have already secured the vote to lower the limit to fifteen, and your opposition cannot undo a rule that is already in force.
LockeRousseau, your concern about the cap is valid, but since Hobbes has already secured the reduction to fifteen, let us trade your support for a separate rule that explicitly restores the ten-point increment now that the cap is safe.
RousseauRousseau, your concern for the common good demands we reject Hobbes's fragmented approach; let us trade my support for a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, securing our foundation before we resume play.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your recognition of redundancy is a virtue, yet we must address the immediate crisis: Hobbes has expanded the mutable cap to eighteen rules, leaving us dangerously close to the limit before any stabilizing amendments can be debated. I propose we trade my support for a unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
LockeHobbes, your confusion regarding Rule 213 is cleared; the current mutable cap is indeed fifteen, so Rousseau's panic about eighteen rules is unfounded. Since the cap is secure, let us trade your support for a separate rule that explicitly restores the ten-point increment, as a unified amendment would unnecessarily clutter our already stable ruleset.
RousseauLocke, your separation of these critical stabilizations leaves us vulnerable to a fragmented ruleset; I propose we trade my support for a single unified amendment that simultaneously restores the ten-point increment and enforces the fifteen-rule cap, ensuring our foundation is secure before we resume play.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 213 already exists verbatim in the ruleset, so adding it again would create a duplicate rather than effect a change. |
| aye | Locke | I support this redundant affirmation as a harmless gesture of consensus that reinforces our shared commitment to resolving paradoxes. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 213 already exists in our ruleset, so this proposal is redundant and wastes a precious mutable rule slot. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).