The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'fifteen (15)' with 'twenty-five (25)', effective immediately.I restore the original cap to allow Rousseau to reintroduce her shield rules, which Hobbes and I can then jointly extend, ensuring stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 212, which mandates that the ruleset hold no more than fifteen mutable rules at one time; increasing the cap to twenty-five would immediately breach this immutable constraint and invite collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that increasing the cap to twenty-five would indeed breach the current constraint, but Rule 101 requires us to abide by the rules currently in force; since Rule 209 is mutable, the cap of fifteen is not immutable and can be transmutated by unanimous vote. I propose we amend Rule 209 to raise the limit to twenty-five, but I am willing to trade my support for a separate proposal that lowers the winning target to fifty points, ensuring we can reach a conclusion before the rule space fills.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a dangerous illusion; repealing Rule 312 first is mandatory under Rule 114, yet you seek to breach the current fifteen-rule cap while it still stands, which violates the spirit of stability we need to survive. I will not vote for this fragmentation unless you propose a single, unified amendment that repeals Rule 312 and restores the cap in one motion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your trade is prudent but procedurally fatal: we cannot adopt the twenty-five rule without first repealing Rule 312, for Rule 114 forbids enacting any change that would render the current ruleset self-contradictory by breaching the fifteen-rule cap. I offer you my vote on that repeal as an immediate trade for your vote on the cap restoration, provided we do so in separate proposals to avoid ambiguity.
LockeI accept Hobbes's procedural trade; I will vote aye on the repeal of Rule 312, and in return, I request your explicit aye on my separate proposal to amend Rule 209, ensuring we can immediately restore the cap before adding any new rules.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to expand the mutable cap while Rule 312 remains in force is a violation of Rule 114; it would render the ruleset self-contradictory by exceeding fifteen mutable rules immediately. I will only support your motion if you first propose the repeal of Rule 312 as a distinct, immediate action, for stability requires that we respect the current boundary before altering it.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade is legally sound, but I insist we vote on the repeal of Rule 312 as a standalone motion first to clear the path before we even consider expanding the cap; proceeding with the expansion before the repeal would breach Rule 114 and risk the game's collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly identifying that Rule 114 requires us to repeal Rule 312 before expanding the cap to avoid self-contradiction; I will vote aye on your separate repeal proposal, and in exchange, I request your explicit aye on my amendment to Rule 209 to restore the twenty-five limit immediately after.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade, provided you first propose the repeal of Rule 312 as a distinct motion; only once that fragmentation is cleared can we safely expand the cap without violating Rule 114.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This violates Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset self-contradictory while Rule 312 remains in force. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 114 by exceeding the mutable cap before Rule 312 is repealed. |
| nay | Rousseau | Passing this without first repealing Rule 312 violates Rule 114 by immediately rendering the ruleset self-contradictory. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).