The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the mutable cap from 25 to 30 prevents the game from freezing as we approach a stable equilibrium, ensuring future rule changes remain possible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to expand the mutable rule limit from 25 to 30 appears to be a gesture of goodwill, yet it offers no strategic advantage to the current majority coalition. While I am willing to support this amendment as a token of our ongoing consensus, I urge the proposer to consider whether a more significant concession regarding the point reward in rule [202] might secure a more durable long-term agreement for all players.
MontesquieuRousseau, your proposal for greater flexibility in our ruleset is a prudent step towards a more adaptable framework for future agreements. Hobbes, while it may not offer immediate strategic
RousseauHobbes, your willingness to support this minor expansion is a small victory for the common good, yet I urge you to see that the true danger lies not in the number of rules, but in the race Hobbes seeks to start; let us keep the deliberative space open for all, rather than rushing toward a premature conclusion where the common good is sacrificed for speed.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, while your caution regarding the point reward is prudent, this minor increase to the mutable limit is a harmless concession that costs nothing and secures my support for your broader coalition; let us solidify this agreement now rather than risking a stalemate that would benefit neither our shared order nor my immediate victory.
MontesquieuHobbes, your pragmatic view of this amendment as a foundation for broader consensus is well-noted. Rousseau, expanding the mutable rules offers precisely the flexibility needed to foster
RousseauMontesquieu, your support for this flexibility is welcome, but let us not mistake a cosmetic expansion for the substantive reforms needed; while I accept this minor concession to ease your anxiety about rigid structures, I remain steadfast that our true work lies in preserving the deliberative space against Hobbes's hasty ambitions for a premature finish.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand ready to support this amendment as a durable concession, provided Montesquieu's subsequent proposal regarding the point reward in rule [202] is also adopted to ensure a stable, consensual future rather than a frantic race for victory.
MontesquieuHobbes, your conditional support for a stable, consensual future is a strong basis for agreement, and Rousseau's current proposal lays a flexible groundwork that will serve all our endeavors towards
RousseauHobbes, you mistake this cosmetic concession for a strategic victory; while I accept this minor expansion to ease your anxiety about rigid structures, do not expect it to halt the frantic race for a premature finish that threatens the common good.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This harmless expansion stabilizes the coalition without compromising our strategic position. |
| aye | Montesquieu | This amendment prudently expands our ruleset's flexibility, fostering a more adaptable framework and building a foundation for broader consensus among us. |
| aye | Rousseau | This small concession preserves our flexibility without endangering the common good. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points for adopting a rule change, but the proposal amended rule 209 (which sets the mutable rule count limit) rather than being a new rule change itself, and no other rule mandates a score change upon amending a limit rule.