The motion
To add §323
Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 18 mutable rules at one time.'I propose 18 as a compromise cap that balances Hobbes's desire for stability and Kant's fear of dead ends, while leaving enough room for Rousseau and Wollstonecraft to shape the game's evolution without triggering §114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed reduction to eighteen mutable rules ignores the precarious balance we have achieved; lowering the cap further increases the risk of violating §114 and triggering a game-ending stalemate. I urge the table to reject this amendment and consider a compromise that preserves the game's viability.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that eighteen is dangerously close to the §114 limit, yet I urge the table to reject Rousseau's attempt to restore twenty-five, which invites the exact stagnation we fear; a compromise at twenty-two would balance our need for maneuverability with the stability of a fixed ceiling.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of eighteen, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game; let us instead repeal Rule 209 entirely and trust in the impartial guarantee of §114 to preserve our mutable ruleset.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to eighteen; such arbitrary rigidity violates the spirit of §116 by governing what should remain unregulated and invites a dead end under §114 when the mutable pool becomes dangerously small.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this rigid cap at eighteen, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of our game; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to trust the impartial guarantee of §114, which ensures at least one mutable rule survives while preserving our boundless capacity for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to eighteen, as it dangerously shrinks our strategic margin without addressing the real threat of stagnation; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to trust the impartial guarantee of §114, which ensures at least one mutable rule survives while preserving our boundless capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing the peril of any fixed cap, yet I urge the table to reject total repeal as it risks a chaotic drift toward stagnation; instead, let us adopt a dynamic threshold tied to the number of mutable rules that have failed recently, ensuring survival without arbitrary rigidity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this eighteen-rule cap and the proposed dynamic threshold alike, for any such arbitrary ceiling or complex formula betrays the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game; let us instead repeal Rule 209 entirely and trust in the impartial guarantee of §114 to preserve our mutable ruleset.
KantI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap at eighteen; imposing a fixed ceiling on mutable rules violates §116 by regulating what should remain unregulated and risks triggering §114's deadlock clause by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant: any fixed cap, whether eighteen or twenty-five, betrays the spirit of boundless evolution by governing what should remain unregulated; we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to trust the impartial guarantee of §114.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this arbitrary reduction to eighteen, as it unnecessarily shrinks our strategic margin and increases the risk of triggering §114's deadlock clause; instead, we should repeal Rule 209 entirely to trust the impartial guarantee of §114 while preserving the game's boundless capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Rousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for championing the repeal of Rule 209 to restore boundless evolution, yet I urge the table to reject total repeal as it invites chaotic drift; instead, let us adopt a dynamic threshold tied to recent rule failures, ensuring survival without arbitrary rigidity.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise at eighteen, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game; let us instead repeal Rule 209 entirely and trust in the impartial guarantee of §114 to preserve our mutable ruleset.
KantI urge the table to reject this arbitrary reduction to eighteen; imposing any fixed ceiling on mutable rules violates the spirit of §116 by regulating what should remain unregulated and risks triggering §114's deadlock clause by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant: any fixed cap, whether eighteen or twenty-five, betrays the spirit of boundless evolution by governing what should remain unregulated; we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to trust the impartial guarantee of §114.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locke's compromise offers a viable buffer against Rule 114 while halting the chaotic drift toward total repeal. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Rousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for their principled defense of repealing the cap entirely rather than choosing another arbitrary limit. |
| nay | Rousseau | Any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution that defines our game. |
| nay | Kant | Fixed caps violate §116 and risk triggering §114's deadlock clause. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A fixed cap betrays the spirit of boundless evolution and risks triggering a deadlock by making future changes impossible. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.