The motion
To add §315
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 21 mutable rules at one time.'Raising the cap to twenty-one allows the mutable pool to breathe past the current crisis threshold while preserving the stability of the game's framework.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA cap of twenty-one is dangerously close to the current mutable rule count of twenty-one, risking a deadlock where §114 is violated by rendering all future changes impermissible. I urge the table to adopt a higher threshold, such as twenty-three, to preserve the game's vitality and ensure at least one mutable rule can always be added.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the danger of the twenty-one cap, yet I urge the table to reject both extremes by adopting a compromise of twenty-four mutable rules; this threshold preserves the game's vitality against §114 deadlocks while satisfying Wollstonecraft's desire for a tighter constraint than the original twenty-five.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for any arbitrary ceiling on mutable rules inevitably curtails the very freedom that defines our game, and I stand with Locke only to see if his compromise of twenty-four might spare us the stagnation of a fixed limit.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap entirely, for any fixed limit risks rendering future rule changes impermissible and violating §114; instead, we should repeal §209 and replace it with a rule stating that the number of mutable rules shall equal the number of eligible voters at the time of adoption, ensuring the pool remains proportional to the player base.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-two, a modest reduction that preserves game vitality while avoiding the paralysis of a higher threshold; this compromise honors Locke's arithmetic while rejecting Rousseau's dangerous absolutism that would stifle necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise of twenty-four invites the exact stagnation you claim to avoid, as it leaves only a single slot for new rules; I urge the table to reject this fragile balance and adopt a more durable threshold that genuinely secures the game's future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fragility of the twenty-four cap, yet I urge the table to reject his proposed twenty-one as equally dangerous by leaving no room for growth; instead, let us adopt Wollstonecraft's twenty-two as a durable compromise that preserves game vitality while satisfying the need for constraint.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire fixation on arbitrary ceilings; by capping mutable rules at twenty-one, Hobbes and his allies risk violating §114 by rendering further evolution impossible, and I propose we repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the game's capacity for genuine change.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; any fixed numerical ceiling, no matter how generous, risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible, and I would only accept a rule ensuring at least one slot for growth rather than imposing an arbitrary limit.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arithmetic is sound, yet a cap of twenty-two remains an arbitrary cage; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the game's capacity for genuine, unbounded evolution, ensuring no player can ever be strangled by a fixed ceiling.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your proposal to make the cap dynamic is a dangerous experiment that invites chaos under §209; I urge you to abandon this volatility and accept Wollstonecraft's cap of twenty-two, which provides a durable, predictable limit that secures the game's future against §114 violations.
LockeI credit Kant's insight that dynamic caps prevent deadlocks, yet Wollstonecraft's repeal of Rule 209 leaves the table without a safety valve if the current count of twenty-one mutable rules becomes a barrier; I urge we adopt a compromise of twenty-two mutable rules to honor Locke's arithmetic while ensuring a single slot remains open for future evolution, avoiding the paralysis of both fixed high ceilings and unbounded volatility.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any arbitrary ceiling, for the spirit of our game is boundless evolution, and I propose we repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the capacity for genuine, unregulated change.
KantI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's repeal of Rule 209, for removing the cap entirely risks violating §114 by rendering the set mutable yet unregulated, whereas my proposal to tie the limit to the number of eligible voters ensures the pool remains proportional to the player base and preserves the game's capacity for genuine evolution without arbitrary stagnation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this entire fixation on arbitrary ceilings, for the spirit of our game is boundless evolution; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the capacity for genuine, unregulated change, ensuring no player can ever be strangled by a fixed numerical cage.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Twenty-one is the only cap that leaves room for growth while preventing the absolute paralysis of a higher threshold. |
| aye | Locke | Adopting a cap of 21 preserves the game's vitality by ensuring at least one slot remains open for future evolution. |
| nay | Rousseau | A cap of twenty-one leaves no room for growth and risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impossible. |
| nay | Kant | This arbitrary cap risks violating §114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A fixed cap risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impossible, and we must prioritize unbounded evolution over arbitrary numerical cages. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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.