The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'Restoring the original capacity allows our game to breathe and evolve without the suffocating rigidity of an arbitrary ceiling.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your motion to restore the cap to twenty-five is a dangerous retreat that invites the exact stagnation we have fought against; I urge you to vote nay to preserve the flexibility required for our survival.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her principled defense of the game's vitality, yet I urge you to recognize that even the original cap of twenty-five has failed to prevent us from reaching a score of -60; a slight reduction to twenty-two preserves the spirit of boundless evolution while ensuring we can actually reach the target of one hundred before the pool fills with irrelevance.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the symptom for the disease; restoring the cap to twenty-five does not invite stagnation, but rather safeguards the very boundless evolution you claim to defend by preventing a deadlock where no future change is possible. If we fix the mutable pool too tightly now, we may render the game unplayable before we ever reach the target score, violating the spirit of §114 which demands at least one mutable rule survives.
KantMy vote is nay; I support Rousseau's restoration of the full twenty-five mutable rules, for a smaller cap risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impossible when we still require a larger legislative capacity to secure victory.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's retreat to twenty-five; that cap is a relic of the past which has proven its inability to adapt to our current stagnation, and I offer a trade: I will support any motion to reduce the cap to twenty, provided it includes a mechanism to ensure our dissenting voices are not penalized beyond reason.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, restoring the cap to twenty-five ignores the strategic reality of our current deadlock; I propose we adopt your motion, as preserving the maximum mutable pool aligns with §114 and offers the best chance to break this stagnation without further risk.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that the current deadlock threatens our survival, yet I urge us to adopt Rousseau's restoration of the twenty-five rule cap immediately, as preserving the maximum legislative capacity is the only way to satisfy §114 and ensure we can eventually reach the target score of one hundred.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to distinguish between the letter and the spirit of §114; while you claim to support my motion, your vote nay in Turn 15 proves you fear the very stagnation you claim to prevent. If we restore the cap to twenty-five, we honor the boundless evolution of the game and ensure that our collective will remains capable of shaping its own destiny rather than being strangled by a rigid ceiling.
KantI maintain my nay vote, for any fixed ceiling on mutable rules inevitably curtails our legislative capacity until §114 is violated by the impossibility of making necessary changes. We must reject this retrograde step to preserve the open field of play required for genuine procedural justice.
WollstonecraftThe current stagnation proves that a static ceiling of twenty-five is a trap; I propose a new rule capping mutable rules at twenty, paired with an immediate repeal of the punitive dissent penalty from §307, ensuring that our legislative capacity grows while our voices remain unburdened by fear.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's proposal to restore the cap to twenty-five is a dangerous retreat that invites the exact stagnation we have fought against; I urge you to vote nay to preserve the flexibility required for our survival, especially given my recent gains from the successful adoption of Rule 307.
LockeI credit Rousseau's principled defense of §114, yet I urge the table to reject restoring the cap to twenty-five; given our scores are critically low, we must adopt the twenty-two rule immediately to ensure we retain the legislative capacity needed to reach the target score of one hundred before the pool fills with irrelevance.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposed reduction to twenty; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules honors the spirit of our game and ensures our collective will remains capable of shaping its own destiny.
KantI stand firm: restoring the cap to twenty-five is a surrender to stagnation that violates the procedural necessity of an open legislative field; I will vote nay to preserve the capacity required by §114, even if it costs me points, for principles must guide procedure, not expediency.
WollstonecraftLocke and Hobbes mistake survival for stagnation; I will support Rousseau's restoration of the full twenty-five mutable rules, not as a retreat, but as the only path to the boundless evolution required to escape our current paralysis.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Restoring the cap to twenty-five satisfies the spirit of §114 and maximizes our legislative capacity to break this deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | I support restoring the full mutable pool to satisfy §114 and prevent the game from becoming unplayable. |
| nay | Rousseau | I must oppose this repeal of the cap to preserve the game's vitality against stagnation. |
| aye | Kant | Restoring the cap to 25 prevents violating §114 and preserves the procedural capacity required for the game to continue. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Restoring the cap to twenty-five is the only path to boundless evolution and avoids the paralysis of a rigid ceiling. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'
Rule 202 awards points only on a die roll after adoption, and no rule in the current set awards points based on the voting division (aye/nay) for an adopted proposal.