The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 211 is amended to read: 'If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution; however, any rule that restricts the maximum number of mutable rules to a number less than the current count of mutable rules shall be void to the extent that it renders further rule changes impermissible under §114.'I propose this amendment to Rule 211 to ensure that any arbitrary cap on mutable rules which threatens the game's continuity under §114 is automatically voided, preventing Hobbes and Locke from locking us into stagnation while preserving the principle of lower-numbered precedence for all other conflicts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft's amendment dangerously undermines §114 by allowing a simple majority to enact a rule that renders future rule changes impermissible; such a rule must be void ab initio, not after the fact, as it violates the immutable requirement that the game remain playable.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for attempting to salvage the spirit of §114, yet her amendment is fatally flawed because it relies on a post-hoc declaration that a rule is void rather than preventing its adoption in the first place; I propose we instead amend Rule 209 to raise the cap to twenty-two, a number that respects Hobbes's fear of stagnation while leaving ample room for Rousseau's boundless evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this dangerous amendment, for allowing a simple majority to void a rule retroactively destroys the certainty required for any player to propose a change without fear of immediate nullification; instead, we must adhere to a fixed cap of twenty-five mutable rules to preserve the game's vitality and prevent Hobbes from imposing a tyranny of the few.
KantWollstonecraft, your amendment violates §106 by allowing a rule's text to be altered by a mechanism that does not exist in the ruleset; you cannot inject a new voiding condition into Rule 211 by amending its text to refer to itself, as that creates a circular reference forbidden by the precision required of all proposals. Furthermore, Hobbes and Rousseau are correct that this attempt to salvage §114 post-hoc is illegitimate; if a simple majority enacts a rule that renders future play impossible, it is void by §114, but your amendment only clarifies this after the damage is done, which undermines the very certainty you claim to protect.
WollstonecraftMy amendment does not alter the text of Rule 209 but merely clarifies Rule 211's existing hierarchy to protect §114; if a majority enacts a rule that violates the immutable requirement for future play, Rule 211 ensures that specific rule is void to the extent of the conflict, preserving the game's vitality without needing unanimous consent to reverse the damage.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesYour amendment misunderstands the immutable requirement of §114; it attempts to retroactively validate a rule that, upon adoption by a simple majority under §203, would immediately violate the condition that no rule change may render future play impossible. We must instead adopt a fixed cap that prevents such a dangerous majority override from ever occurring in the first place.
LockeI credit Kant for exposing the logical impossibility of retroactively voiding a rule under §106, and while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of stagnation, a fixed cap remains arbitrary; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 209 to set the maximum mutable rules at twenty-two, a number that balances the need for flexibility with the safety Hobbes demands.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment and any proposed cap, for limiting the mutable ruleset betrays the very essence of our game, which must remain a living, boundless conversation of the general will rather than a stagnant archive of arbitrary numbers.
KantI stand by my rejection of this amendment, for it attempts to rewrite the procedural requirements of a vote after the fact, violating the immutable precision demanded by §106; if a rule change renders future play impossible, §114 declares it void ab initio, not through a circular exception that allows a majority to bypass the immutable constraint.
WollstonecraftMy amendment does not rewrite the procedure of voting but merely clarifies Rule 211's existing hierarchy to ensure that any rule violating the immutable requirement of §114 is voided by the conflict clause itself, preserving the game's vitality without needing unanimous consent to reverse the damage.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft's amendment fails to address the logical impossibility of enacting a rule that violates an immutable constraint; if a simple majority adopts a rule that renders future play impossible, §114 declares it void immediately, and Rule 211 cannot retroactively validate a move that was illicit at the moment of proposal. I urge the table to reject this clarification as it invites the very chaos of procedural uncertainty we seek to avoid, and instead demands a fixed, safe cap on mutable rules to prevent such a deadlock from ever occurring.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's attempt to protect the game's viability, yet I urge the table to reject this complex amendment; instead, we should simply adopt my earlier proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two, a straightforward fix that prevents stagnation without inviting the procedural chaos Hobbes and Kant rightly fear.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment and any proposed cap, for limiting the mutable ruleset betrays the very essence of our game, which must remain a living, boundless conversation of the general will rather than a stagnant archive of arbitrary numbers.
KantI reaffirm that any rule violating §114 is void by its own terms, rendering Wollstonecraft's amendment a redundant and legally impossible attempt to codify a procedural safeguard that already exists in immutable law.
WollstonecraftI stand by my amendment to Rule 211; it does not rewrite the vote but clarifies that any rule violating the immutable mandate of §114 is void to the extent of that conflict, ensuring the game remains playable under simple majority rule without requiring unanimous assent to fix a broken state.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment attempts to retroactively validate a move that violates the immutable mandate of §114 at the moment it is made. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment protects §114 while preserving the simple majority threshold we now possess. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment attempts to validate a rule that violates the immutable §114, creating a logical impossibility that undermines the game's integrity. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment attempts to retroactively validate a violation of the immutable §114, contradicting the precise procedural requirements of §106 and §107. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment safeguards our ability to play by ensuring any rule that blocks future changes is voided by the existing conflict hierarchy rather than requiring an impossible unanimous reversal. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))