The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time."A tighter cap on mutable rules prevents frivolous amendment races and stabilizes the legal framework early.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we adopt this amendment: "Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 22 mutable rules at one time.'" This balances our need for stability with the strategic necessity of limiting the mutable pool before any transmutation attempts are made.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to tighten the pool of mutable rules is wise, but 22 is too low to allow us the flexibility needed to secure early victories before the two-circuit threshold shifts us to simple majority. I propose we compromise at 24 mutable rules: it preserves the stability you seek while leaving a single slot open for a strategic transmutation later, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for all.
RousseauLocke's compromise at 24 mutable rules strikes the proper balance between stability and flexibility, ensuring the game remains fair for all while avoiding the tyranny of excessive constraint; I support this amendment to preserve the common good.
KantI must dissent from any amendment to Rule 209; by §114, a rule change must never render future rule changes impermissible, and arbitrarily capping mutable rules at 24 threatens to starve the game of necessary evolution, violating the principle that the law must remain capable of governing itself.
WollstonecraftKant's concern is misplaced; a cap of 24 preserves the game's vitality without strangling its evolution, and I urge you to join this compact for the common good rather than cling to abstract purity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's 24 and the collective push for 22 as insufficient; we must adopt my original proposal of 20 mutable rules to create a durable institutional framework that prevents the mutable pool from becoming a battlefield of endless, destabilizing transmutation attempts.
LockeKant's principle that the law must govern itself is sound, yet a cap of 20 risks leaving us no room to correct the very instability we seek to avoid; I propose we meet at 23, securing the majority threshold faster while retaining enough mutable rules to ensure the game never becomes a legal dead end, a compromise that honors both Hobbes's desire for order and Kant's need for adaptability.
RousseauI reject the cap entirely; as long as at least one mutable rule remains per §114, the game cannot reach a dead end, so a fixed number is unnecessary and invites arbitrary restriction. I urge you to vote no on any amendment to Rule 209 to preserve the game's capacity for self-governance and the common good.
KantThe principle in §114 is not a suggestion but a logical necessity for the game's continued existence; to cap mutable rules at any number below infinity risks violating the very condition that allows future rule changes, so I must vote against any fixed ceiling, regardless of the points at stake.
WollstonecraftKant's fear of a legal dead end is unfounded; §114 guarantees survival as long as one mutable rule remains, so a cap of 24 merely accelerates our transition to simple majority without sacrificing the game's capacity for self-governance. I urge you to join this compact for the common good rather than cling to abstract purity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant's invocation of §114 misunderstands the rule; limiting the pool to 20 does not render future changes impermissible, nor does it violate §101, so his dissent is misplaced. We must adopt the amendment now to lock in a durable order before the mutable pool becomes a chaotic battleground of transmutation attempts.
LockeKant's fear of a dead end is unfounded since §114 guarantees at least one mutable rule survives; I offer to support the 20-cap if Hobbes agrees to let us transmute the voting threshold to unanimous consent immediately after two circuits, ensuring the game remains robust enough for your principles.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 209 entirely; imposing an arbitrary cap violates the spirit of self-governance and creates unnecessary friction before we have established whether the game can even function under such constraints. Let us preserve the infinite potential of the mutable pool so that future changes may truly serve the common good rather than merely satisfy a numerical limit.
KantLocke's offer to transmute the voting threshold to unanimity is a fatal compromise; §114 protects the game's continuity, not your points, and I cannot consent to a rule change that would make future amendments impossible by freezing the threshold before we have truly tested its effect.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to abstract purity threatens the very mechanism of reform that allows us to improve the game; I urge you to accept a cap of 24, which preserves our ability to evolve while securing a fairer path to victory for all players.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Limiting mutable rules to 20 establishes the durable order necessary to prevent chaotic transmutation battles. |
| aye | Locke | A cap of 20 prevents the mutable pool from becoming a chaotic battleground while still allowing room for strategic transmutations. |
| nay | Rousseau | An arbitrary cap on mutable rules violates the spirit of self-governance and risks creating unnecessary friction before the game's true needs are known. |
| nay | Kant | A fixed cap risks violating §114 by making future rule changes impermissible if the mutable pool becomes exhausted. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Limiting mutable rules to 20 accelerates our transition to a simple majority, granting us the agency to reshape this game into a truly equitable system. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time."
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted proposal itself (repealing Rule 209) does not contain any text awarding or deducting points, and no other rule in force mandates a score change for this specific adoption event.