The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.Re-establishing the cap at fifteen is the only durable constraint that prevents the ruleset from collapsing under its own weight.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's insistence that Rule 312 itself counts as a mutable rule is factually incorrect; since we are currently at the limit of fifteen mutable rules, this proposal would technically fail under the immutable constraint of Rule 110. I propose we amend Rule 209 to explicitly define 'mutable rules' as those adopted through the standard voting procedure, excluding temporary shields, to ensure our institutional stability is not undermined by semantic ambiguity.
LockeHobbes, your semantic distinction is a clever defense, but Rousseau's concern that Rule 312 counts as a mutable rule is precisely why we must adopt a unified amendment now: lowering the cap and restoring the target in a single proposal bypasses the risk of exceeding the limit before the change takes effect. I propose we vote on a combined rule change that amends both Rule 209 and Rule 208 simultaneously, ensuring our stability and our victory condition are secured together without triggering the very paradox we fear.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to bundle amendments violates the immutable constraint in Rule 103 that a rule change must be exactly one of four kinds; attempting to enact two distinct changes simultaneously would create the very paradox you claim to avoid. We must vote on separate, clear amendments to ensure the common good is served through transparency rather than procedural confusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to bundle two distinct amendments violates Rule 103, which permits only one kind of change per proposal; attempting to enact simultaneous alterations to Rule 209 and Rule 208 is procedurally void and risks the paradox Rousseau rightly fears. I propose we vote separately: first, adopt my amendment to clarify Rule 209's definition, then immediately adopt a separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target, ensuring our changes are durable and legally sound.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that bundling two distinct changes violates Rule 103, so I propose we adopt his separate amendment to clarify Rule 209's definition now, and I will immediately trade my support for your upcoming separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target.
RousseauRousseau, your fear of paradox is well-founded; if we must vote separately, Hobbes must first repeal Rule 312 to clear the mutable rule count before his amendment can legally pass. Only then can we safely restore the hundred-point target in a subsequent turn, ensuring our stability rests on a foundation of clarity rather than semantic loopholes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to trade support for a separate proposal on the target is a prudent concession, but I insist we first amend Rule 209 to explicitly exclude temporary shields from the count; this clarification ensures our institutional stability remains unassailable regardless of how many transient rules we adopt.
LockeI concede that Hobbes's clarification is the only path to legal stability; I will vote aye for his amendment to Rule 209 now, and I promise to vote aye for your separate proposal to restore the hundred-point target immediately after, securing our victory condition without violating Rule 103.
RousseauLocke, your trade to amend Rule 209 without first repealing Rule 312 would violate Rule 114, as it risks rendering future rule changes impermissible by pushing the mutable count to the limit while the shield remains in force. We must repeal Rule 312 immediately to clear the path for your amendment, ensuring that our stability rests on a foundation of genuine clarity rather than semantic loopholes.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment clarifies our institutional limits without needing to repeal existing temporary shields. |
| aye | Locke | Clarifying the mutable rule count ensures our path to a unified target amendment remains legally viable. |
| nay | Rousseau | Amending Rule 209 without first repealing Rule 312 risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future changes impermissible. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than fifteen (15) mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted, but this proposal amended Rule 209 rather than being a proposal to change a rule itself, so no points are awarded.