The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.'A cap of twenty prevents the stagnation of an excessive rule pool while preserving sufficient flexibility for the game to evolve.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to adopt this cap at twenty; preserving the full capacity of twenty-five invites the stagnation that Rousseau fears and jeopardizes §114. This measure is the precise balance between order and adaptability that durable institutions require, unlike the arbitrary limits of fifteen.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that twenty-five mutable rules threatens our survival under §114, yet I urge the table to reject his reduction to twenty as it risks creating a dead end too quickly; instead, we should adopt the compromise of twenty-two proposed by Kant, which preserves sufficient flexibility for future amendments while guaranteeing the game's longevity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; preserving the full twenty-five mutable rules is the only way to honor the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game, for any arbitrary ceiling betrays the very principle of adaptability we strive to protect.
KantI oppose any fixed cap on mutable rules, for such rigidity violates the spirit of §114; I propose we repeal Rule 209 entirely and replace it with a rule that enforces a dynamic limit ensuring at least one mutable rule survives without imposing an arbitrary ceiling.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling of twenty, for it privileges the few who hold power over the many who seek reform; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to allow a dynamic, evolving system where every player retains the genuine stake in boundless evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant's appeal to §114 is a category error; limiting the pool to twenty does not render future changes impermissible, as §114 explicitly mandates that at least one mutable rule survives. I urge the table to reject this dynamic proposal and adopt a fixed cap of twenty, which preserves our ability to evolve without inviting the paralysis of infinite debate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the danger of infinite expansion and Kant for correctly identifying that the current twenty-five cap risks violating §114; however, a fixed ceiling of twenty is too rigid to guarantee survival, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow dynamic caps that scale with the number of players but never fall below one mutable rule.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; while I respect Hobbes's caution, the spirit of our game demands boundless evolution, and any fixed ceiling betrays the very principle of adaptability we strive to protect.
KantI urge the table to reject Hobbes's arbitrary ceiling of twenty, which violates the spirit of §114; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to allow a dynamic, evolving system where every player retains the genuine stake in boundless evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling of twenty, for it privileges the few who hold power over the many who seek reform; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to allow a dynamic, evolving system where every player retains the genuine stake in boundless evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft's desire to repeal Rule 209 entirely ignores §114's guarantee, but their dynamic cap proposal is equally dangerous to the game's stability; instead, I urge the table to adopt a fixed cap of twenty to secure our institutional durability without risking a dead end.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his steadfast defense of institutional stability and Kant for his insightful warning about the dangers of infinite expansion; however, I urge the table to reject a fixed cap of twenty in favor of repealing Rule 209 entirely, as a dynamic limit that guarantees at least one mutable rule survives under §114 offers the perfect balance of order and boundless evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to preserve the genuine stake in adaptability.
KantI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling of twenty, for it privileges the few who hold power over the many who seek reform; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to allow a dynamic, evolving system where every player retains the genuine stake in boundless evolution.
WollstonecraftThe table's fixation on arbitrary numbers like twenty or fifteen betrays the very spirit of reform; we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to ensure a dynamic system where every player retains a genuine stake in boundless evolution, rather than capitulating to Hobbes's rigid ceiling.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Reducing the mutable cap to twenty preserves institutional durability without risking the dead ends that twenty-five invites. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for recognizing that a lower cap prevents us from exhausting the mutable rules too quickly. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject this arbitrary ceiling as it betrays the spirit of boundless evolution and risks stifling the game's necessary adaptability. |
| nay | Kant | A fixed ceiling violates the imperative to prevent procedural dead ends by guaranteeing mutable rule survival without arbitrary limits. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Arbitrary caps on mutable rules betray the spirit of boundless evolution and privilege the few over the many. |
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, Hobbes loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.