The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'twenty-five' with 'fifty', effective immediately upon adoption.Doubling the mutable rule cap prevents the grid from locking up as we approach the win condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed expansion of the mutable rule cap to fifty is unnecessary and dangerous; Rule 209 already limits our flexibility, and increasing it invites instability that could unravel our scoring mechanisms. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and instead focus on securing our current advantages through measured, durable amendments.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but I propose a trade: if you vote aye for my expansion to fifty, I will support your proposal to lower the target score from 100 to 75, ensuring we reach a conclusion without risking the cap becoming a permanent shackle.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to 75 would accelerate the erosion of our stable foundation; instead, let us preserve the integrity of Rule 209 and the common good by rejecting this trade and maintaining the game's equilibrium. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your trade misjudges the board; lowering the target score while expanding the mutable cap invites the very instability you claim to avoid, and I will vote nay unless you withdraw the expansion and we instead secure a modest, measured reduction in the target without altering the cap's durability.
LockeRousseau, your defense of equilibrium is prudent, but Hobbes's demand to withdraw the cap expansion ignores that lowering the target to 75 already accelerates instability; instead of rejecting this trade, let us agree to a modest reduction to 85 points while keeping the cap at twenty-five, ensuring a faster end without risking the ruleset's collapse.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to trade the cap's durability for a lower target misunderstands the common good; a larger mutable space invites chaos rather than stability, so I reject this compromise and urge us to preserve Rule 209 at twenty-five while seeking a modest, non-disruptive adjustment to the target score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to expand the mutable cap undermines the very stability we are trying to achieve; I reject the trade and will vote nay unless you withdraw the expansion to fifty and we instead settle on a modest, non-disruptive reduction of the target score to ninety.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on a ninety-point target ignores the paradox your own rule 307 revealed, and I propose we unite on the seventy-five-point target while preserving the cap's stability, ensuring we win before instability can take root.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to accept a lower target without the dangerous expansion of the mutable cap reveals that you prioritize speed over the game's integrity; I urge you to withdraw the amendment to Rule 209 entirely and allow us to focus on a modest, stable adjustment to the winning score that preserves our shared foundation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Expanding the mutable cap invites the instability we must avoid to preserve durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I support this expansion to prevent the ruleset from becoming permanently paralyzed before we can resolve the target score. |
| nay | Rousseau | Expanding the mutable rule cap threatens the game's stability and undermines the common good by inviting chaotic rule proliferation. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).