The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 22 mutable rules at one time.'I propose 22 as a compromise cap that balances Hobbes's fear of stagnation with Rousseau's desire to preserve flexibility, ensuring the game remains playable without risking the dead-end scenario Locke fears.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two; such a figure dangerously approaches the limit of twenty-five and invites the stagnation that §114 seeks to prevent. We must preserve flexibility rather than codify a near-total freeze before we even reach the threshold for simple majority voting.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the danger of proximity to the immutable limit, yet I urge the table to accept this twenty-two rule cap as a necessary compromise to stabilize the game after the chaotic thirteen-turn debate on thresholds.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; capping mutable rules at twenty-two renders the game's evolution nearly impossible, violating the spirit of §114 that guarantees the survival of play. We must preserve the full capacity for change to ensure the common good remains viable for all players.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two, as it dangerously constrains the mutable space required to avoid deadlock under §114; the principle of procedural liberty demands we preserve the full capacity for rule evolution rather than codify premature stagnation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap entirely; by freezing the mutable ruleset at twenty-two, Locke violates the very principle of reform that §114 guarantees, leaving us no room to resolve the current imbalance or improve our losing chances through genuine evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; while I accept the principle of a limit, such a high figure invites the very stagnation §114 seeks to prevent and risks rendering future rule changes impermissible before the majority threshold is even reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for articulating the precise danger of proximity to the immutable ceiling, yet I urge the table to accept twenty-two as a pragmatic buffer that secures our path to the simple majority threshold while preserving enough room to resolve the current deadlock under §114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules is essential to maintain the game's vitality and ensure that §114's guarantee of future play remains meaningful for all of us.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-two; while I acknowledge the necessity of limits under §209, such a high threshold dangerously restricts the procedural liberty required to resolve deadlocks before the majority threshold is reached.
WollstonecraftLocke's twenty-two is a sham of reform that shackles us before we even reach the majority threshold; instead of this arbitrary cap, I propose we enact a new rule granting every player a permanent bonus point for casting a nay vote on any adopted change, ensuring that dissent is rewarded rather than silenced.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's cap at twenty-two; preserving the full capacity for twenty-five mutable rules is the only way to ensure §114's guarantee of future play remains meaningful before the majority threshold is even reached.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing the need to reward dissent, yet I urge the table to reject her penalty-free proposal as it would destabilize the voting dynamic entirely; instead, let us adopt a cap of twenty-one mutable rules to preserve the spirit of reform while ensuring we reach the majority threshold without risking §114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's twenty-two and Wollstonecraft's twenty-one; neither preserves the full capacity for evolution that §114 guarantees, so we must preserve the original limit of twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the common good remains viable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap entirely; any reduction from twenty-five impermissibly restricts the procedural space required to satisfy §114's guarantee that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this cap at twenty-one or twenty-two; instead, let us adopt my proposal to reward dissent with a point, for true reform requires that every player's voice carries weight, not that we shrink the space for evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Capping mutable rules at 22 dangerously restricts the procedural space required to satisfy the guarantee of future play. |
| aye | Locke | A cap of 22 balances the need for stability with enough room to satisfy §114's guarantee of future play. |
| nay | Rousseau | Capping mutable rules at twenty-two stifles the very evolution required to avoid deadlock under §114. |
| nay | Kant | A cap of 22 arbitrarily restricts the mutable space required to ensure future play remains possible under §114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke's cap shackles our ability to reform and ignore the vital principle that dissent must be rewarded to sustain a fair game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.