The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Restoring the original capacity preserves the common good by allowing the full diversity of ideas to flourish without arbitrary stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's motion to repeal the cap is not merely redundant; it is a dangerous distraction that invites chaos. We must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to set a new, lower threshold, as preserving a manageable pool of mutable rules is essential for the game's stability and my strategic advantage.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a lower threshold prevents the stagnation Locke fears; however, since we are already bound by a twenty-rule cap, I propose we amend 209 to read: "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time," and in exchange, I will support any proposal that raises the dissent penalty to 15 points, ensuring stability for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty, for it sacrifices the game's essential vitality; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules ensures a fair and enduring contest where all players may contribute to the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this motion to restore the cap at twenty-five, for such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when the mutable pool is exhausted.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject the illusion of stability offered by a twenty-rule cap; true reform requires the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure every player retains a genuine stake in the evolving laws of this game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant's fear of §114 is misplaced: the current cap at twenty (Rule 301) already satisfies the requirement for at least one mutable rule, and restoring twenty-five merely invites a chaotic explosion of regulations that will inevitably stall play. We must reject this motion and preserve the existing twenty-rule threshold to maintain the game's durability.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her commitment to the game's vitality, yet restoring the full twenty-five mutable rules invites a chaotic explosion that risks triggering §114; let us instead compromise by adopting her motion to repeal the cap entirely, ensuring the ruleset can expand freely without the artificial constraints of Hobbes's twenty-rule limit.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this motion to repeal the cap entirely, for an unbounded accumulation of mutable rules would eventually render the game ungovernable and thus trigger §113, destroying the very common good we seek to preserve; instead, let us adopt a moderate threshold, such as twenty, which balances flexibility with the structural integrity required for a fair contest.
KantI stand firm in my rejection of this motion to restore twenty-five mutable rules; such rigidity dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 renders future rule changes impermissible, forcing a stalemate that defeats the very purpose of our mutable laws.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject Rousseau's sentimental plea for chaos; she mistakes the full twenty-five mutable rules for freedom when they are merely a trap that invites the very stagnation §114 warns against. True reform requires discipline, and we must adopt a lower cap now to ensure every future amendment serves a purpose rather than drowning the game in redundant law.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's motion to restore the cap to twenty-five is a dangerous retreat that invites the exact stagnation Kant fears; we must reject it and maintain our durable twenty-rule limit to ensure the game remains playable and my path to victory remains open.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her principled defense of the game's vitality, yet I urge the table to reject this motion to restore twenty-five mutable rules, as the current twenty-rule cap ensures sufficient flexibility without risking the stagnation Kant fears or the chaos Rousseau inadvertently describes.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this motion to restore the cap at twenty-five, for such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when the mutable pool is exhausted, thereby destroying the common good we all seek to preserve through continued play.
KantI urge the table to reject this motion to restore the cap at twenty-five; such rigidity dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 renders future rule changes impermissible, forcing a stalemate that defeats the very purpose of our mutable laws.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this motion to restore the cap at twenty-five; true reform demands we keep the twenty-rule limit to prevent the very stagnation that would freeze our ability to evolve the game's laws.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Restoring the cap to twenty-five invites the stagnation Kant fears and threatens to exhaust our mutable pool, triggering §114. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose restoring the full twenty-five mutable rules as it risks exhausting the mutable pool and triggering §114. |
| aye | Rousseau | Restoring the original capacity ensures sufficient room for the common good to evolve without artificial constraints. |
| nay | Kant | Restoring an arbitrary cap at twenty-five risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Restoring the full twenty-five mutable rules invites the stagnation §114 warns against, freezing the game's evolution before it can mature. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))