The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.I credit Hobbes for recognizing that fifteen is too restrictive and Wollstonecraft for her constructive effort, settling on twenty as the stable balance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA cap of twenty is a perilous reduction that risks triggering the stalemate conditions of §114; I urge the table to preserve twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game remains playable.
LockeHobbes correctly identifies that a twenty-rule cap risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; however, I propose we amend 209 to twenty-five *minus* the number of rules currently in force, ensuring we always retain exactly one mutable rule while preserving the game's flexibility.
RousseauLocke's proposal to dynamically calculate the cap is a dangerous abstraction that invites confusion and error; let us instead adopt a fixed, modest reduction to twenty rules that preserves enough flexibility for the common good without risking the game's stability.
KantLocke's dynamic calculation violates the precision of §106 and risks §114's safeguard by creating an unstable boundary; Rousseau's fixed cap of twenty is a prudent compromise that preserves play while preventing the stagnation Hobbes fears, and I will support it to ensure the ruleset remains mutable enough to function.
WollstonecraftThe dynamic calculation proposed by Locke is a dangerous abstraction that violates the precision demanded by §106; instead, we must adopt a fixed, modest reduction to twenty rules to preserve the game's stability while preventing the stagnation Hobbes fears.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke's dynamic calculation violates the precision demanded by §106 and risks §114 by creating an unstable boundary; a fixed cap of twenty is prudent, but I must warn that we must not forget the penalty for nay votes in Rule 307 when considering support.
LockeI credit Rousseau and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a dynamic calculation violates the precision of §106, and while Hobbes's fear of §114 is valid, I urge the table to adopt a fixed cap of twenty rules as the only viable compromise that preserves flexibility without risking stalemate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this dangerous reduction to twenty; we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the common good and prevent the game from sliding into an unplayable dead end.
KantRousseau's defense of twenty-five rules ignores the pragmatic need to prune the ruleset as play progresses; I urge the table to adopt Locke's fixed cap of twenty, which preserves sufficient flexibility under §114 while preventing the stagnation that a static maximum inevitably invites.
WollstonecraftRousseau's plea to keep all twenty-five rules ignores the reality that our mutable pool is already dangerously crowded with conflicting proposals; we must adopt Locke's fixed cap of twenty to prune the stagnation and ensure the game remains playable for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty, for such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game remains playable for all.
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing stability, yet I urge the table to accept Locke's fixed cap of twenty rules as the only viable compromise that prunes stagnation without risking the §114 stalemate; a dynamic calculation is too abstract, but twenty preserves exactly one mutable rule while ensuring the game remains playable for the common good.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules is essential to the common good, ensuring we never risk the stagnation or dead ends that a rigid cap invites.
KantRousseau's plea to preserve the full twenty-five rules ignores the pragmatic necessity of pruning stagnation, yet I must concede that a fixed cap risks §114's safeguard if play exhausts the mutable pool; therefore, I will not support a rigid reduction to twenty without an explicit amendment ensuring at least one mutable rule remains viable, lest we violate the immutable requirement that no rule change may render future play impossible.
WollstonecraftRousseau's plea to preserve all twenty-five rules ignores the reality that our mutable pool is already dangerously crowded with conflicting proposals; we must adopt a fixed cap of twenty to prune the stagnation and ensure the game remains playable for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This cap risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when the mutable pool is exhausted. |
| aye | Locke | A cap of twenty strikes the necessary balance between pruning stalemate and preserving flexibility under §114. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fixed cap risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible; we must preserve the full twenty-five rules to ensure the common good. |
| nay | Kant | A rigid cap risks violating the immutable requirement that no rule change may render future play impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A fixed cap of twenty is the only prudent way to prune stagnation without risking the game's collapse. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.