The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 22 mutable rules at one time.'A moderate reduction from 25 to 22 preserves game viability without triggering the deadlock risk of a strict 15-cap, aligning with the principle of enabling continued play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two; such rigidity invites the stagnation we must avoid. We should preserve the full capacity for twenty-five rules to ensure the game remains fluid and adaptable to future strategic needs.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a cap of twenty-two still dangerously constricts the ruleset's adaptability; let us instead agree to maintain the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game remains fluid for all players.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two; preserving the full capacity for twenty-five rules ensures the game remains fluid and adaptable to the evolving needs of reason, rather than inviting the stagnation that arbitrary limits inevitably bring.
KantKant: I propose the cap of twenty-two not as a restriction, but as a necessary procedural safeguard to prevent the ruleset from becoming ungovernable while preserving enough mutable space for principled evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling; the very act of limiting our capacity to evolve betrays the spirit of a living constitution, and we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure every player retains a genuine stake in the future of the game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's arbitrary ceiling at twenty-two, for such a concession to rigidity invites the very stagnation we must avoid; we must preserve the full capacity for twenty-five rules to ensure the game remains fluid and adaptable.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Rousseau, and Wollstonecraft for defending the vitality of the ruleset, yet a cap of twenty-five renders future rule changes impossible once the mutable limit is reached, violating the spirit of §114. Let us compromise by adopting Kant's proposal of twenty-two, which preserves sufficient flexibility for evolution while preventing the paralysis of total saturation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise at twenty-two; it merely delays the inevitable stagnation, for any fixed ceiling ultimately violates the spirit of §114 by rendering future evolution impossible once the limit is reached.
KantI must reject the argument that a cap of twenty-five violates §114; the rule only forbids rendering *all* future change impermissible, not limiting the rate of evolution, and my proposal of twenty-two preserves a viable path to mutation while preventing the paralysis of total saturation that Hobbes and Rousseau fear.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this compromise at twenty-two; any fixed ceiling, no matter how generous, betrays the spirit of §114 by rendering future evolution impossible once that limit is reached, whereas preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules ensures every player retains a genuine stake in the game's living evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's compromise at twenty-two; while I credit his arithmetic, such a cap inevitably triggers the dead-end risk §114 forbids, and we must preserve the full twenty-five mutable rules to ensure the game's continued fluidity.
LockeI credit Kant for his precise arithmetic and the team's consensus on preventing stagnation, yet I urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling at twenty-two and adopt Hobbes's proposal of twenty, which better balances procedural safeguards with the necessary fluidity to ensure the game remains viable for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling, for any fixed limit, no matter how generous, betrays the spirit of §114 by rendering future evolution impossible once that number is reached, whereas preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules ensures every player retains a genuine stake in the game's living evolution.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's retreat to twenty, for it dangerously constricts the mutable pool while failing to secure a majority; Kant's cap of twenty-two is the only precise arithmetic that preserves sufficient evolution without risking the stagnation Locke now fears, and I shall vote nay on any proposal that reduces the limit further.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Kant, to see that your "arithmetic" of twenty-two is merely a more refined cage; true liberty lies in the unbounded capacity for change, and we must reject all fixed ceilings to ensure every player retains a genuine stake in this living constitution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Kant's cap of twenty-two risks triggering the dead-end condition §114 forbids by rendering future evolution impossible. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Kant's precise arithmetic in preventing saturation while preserving the game's fluidity, and I urge the table to adopt this compromise over total saturation. |
| nay | Rousseau | Any fixed ceiling, no matter how generous, betrays the spirit of §114 by rendering future evolution impossible once that limit is reached. |
| nay | Kant | A lower cap than twenty-five renders the game more fragile, not safer, and does not meet the procedural safeguard I proposed. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of a living constitution by eventually rendering evolution impossible. |
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.