The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.'A compromise cap of 20 balances Kant's concern for deadlock with the need for sufficient mutable rules to sustain play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty, for such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, thereby inviting a premature end to the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his principled concern regarding §114, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for any fixed cap—whether fifteen, twenty, or twenty-two—inevitably risks stagnation over time and invites the very deadlock we seek to avoid.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction to twenty; preserving the full capacity for twenty-five mutable rules is the only way to ensure the game's vitality continues without arbitrary stagnation.
KantLocke, your cap of twenty is merely a more dangerous version of Hobbes's twenty-two; neither preserves the vitality of the mutable ruleset required by §114. I urge the table to reject this amendment and any future reductions to the mutable rule count, as such arbitrary ceilings inevitably invite the stagnation we must avoid.
WollstonecraftLocke's fixation on a rigid cap misunderstands the true purpose of mutable rules; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority after only two circuits, accelerating our path to victory while preserving the game's vital capacity for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject any reduction of the mutable pool below twenty-five; such artificial constraints inevitably trigger §114, rendering the game impossible to continue and handing an unwarranted victory to those who benefit from the resulting paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing that our scores are so low that victory is mathematically impossible under any fixed cap, making the acceleration of the majority threshold in Rule 203 our only viable path to resolution. I urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 209 entirely and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to shift the circuit requirement for simple majority to two, allowing us to end this stalemate and move forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any fixed cap on mutable rules, for the spirit of our game is boundless evolution, and we must preserve the full capacity of twenty-five to ensure the game's vitality continues without arbitrary stagnation.
KantI propose we repeal Rule 209 entirely rather than arbitrarily cap it at twenty, as any fixed ceiling risks violating §114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; let us instead focus on Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 203 to accelerate the shift to simple majority, which resolves our stalemate without sacrificing the game's essential capacity for evolution.
WollstonecraftThe table rightly sees that a lower circuit count accelerates our path to victory, but we must reject any arbitrary cap on mutable rules to preserve the game's vitality; let us pass my amendment to Rule 203 immediately while leaving Rule 209 untouched at twenty-five to ensure our capacity for evolution remains boundless.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely; any reduction of the mutable pool below twenty-five risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which would hand an unwarranted victory to those who benefit from the resulting paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Kant for correctly identifying that our scores are so low that a fixed cap inevitably triggers §114, yet I urge the table to adopt my amendment to Rule 203 instead, which accelerates the shift to a simple majority at two circuits, resolving our stalemate without risking the game's collapse.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any fixed cap on mutable rules, for the spirit of our game is boundless evolution, and we must preserve the full capacity of twenty-five to ensure the game's vitality continues without arbitrary stagnation.
KantI urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 203 immediately, as accelerating the shift to a simple majority is the only viable path to resolving our mathematical stalemate without sacrificing the game's essential capacity for evolution or risking §114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 203 immediately, as accelerating the shift to a simple majority at two circuits is the only viable path to resolving our mathematical stalemate without risking the game's collapse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the cap to twenty risks triggering §114 by making future rule changes impossible. |
| aye | Locke | A 20-rule cap is the necessary compromise to prevent the deadlock that would otherwise make further play impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fixed cap risks violating §114 by eventually rendering future changes impermissible, whereas accelerating the majority threshold resolves our stalemate without sacrificing the game's vitality. |
| nay | Kant | Arbitrary caps on mutable rules risk violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible, which is a greater danger than the stalemate itself. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A fixed cap at twenty preserves the game's vitality while accelerating our path to victory through earlier majority voting. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rule change occurs.