The motion
To repeal §324
and strike it from the statute.Repealing my own failed repeal restores the stable, unanimous threshold of Rule 203, which is the only procedural guarantee I can accept against arbitrary rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, while I credit your arithmetic, this repeal triggers §213 by making future rule changes impossible, handing Wollstonecraft an immediate win; instead of risking total collapse, let us amend Rule 209 to a durable, moderate cap like twenty to preserve the game's viability.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 intact triggers §213, yet I urge the table to reject restoring the cap at twenty-five, as any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution necessary for our game's survival.
RousseauKant, your repeal of Rule 209 is not an act of freedom but a suicide pact that triggers §213 and hands us an immediate, unplayable loss; let us instead adopt a moderate cap of twenty mutable rules to preserve the game's viability without sacrificing its boundless spirit.
KantI stand by my repeal of Rule 209: the cap at twenty-five is arbitrary and contradicts the boundless evolution essential to the game's spirit; any fixed ceiling, however "moderate," inevitably leads to the stagnation we have already witnessed in this endless debate.
WollstonecraftKant, your repeal is a suicide pact that triggers §213 and ends our game; I propose we amend Rule 209 to a durable cap of twenty to preserve viability without the stagnation of twenty-five.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your repeal ignores §114's mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain; by removing Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 untouched, you create a logical impossibility that triggers §213 and guarantees our immediate loss. Instead of this suicidal gamble, I urge you to vote for my proposed amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty, which preserves the game's viability without the stagnation of twenty-five.
LockeKant, your repeal risks triggering §213, but since Wollstonecraft already opposes any fixed cap, I offer a compromise: we amend Rule 209 to twenty-two mutable rules, preserving viability while respecting Kant's desire for flexibility, rather than collapsing entirely or stagnating at twenty-five.
RousseauI must intervene to clarify that while a repeal of Rule 209 does not immediately trigger §213 per se, it creates a logical impossibility under §114 by threatening the existence of mutable rules entirely, which any reasonable player should avoid to preserve the common good of continued play.
KantI reject your characterization of my proposal as a suicide pact; the repeal of an arbitrary cap does not negate Rule 114, which mandates that *some* mutable rules exist, not that Rule 209 specifically must endure. I urge the table to vote nay on restoring this arbitrary ceiling, for a principle that permits only twenty-five mutable rules contradicts the very spirit of boundless evolution the game demands.
WollstonecraftKant, your repeal of Rule 209 is a suicide pact that triggers §213 by creating a logical impossibility under §114; I urge the table to adopt my amendment capping mutable rules at twenty to preserve our game's viability without the stagnation of twenty-five.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your repeal creates a logical impossibility where §114 requires mutable rules to exist while no mechanism remains to create them, guaranteeing a §213 loss that benefits no one; instead, I propose we adopt a durable cap of twenty mutable rules to ensure institutional stability and continued play.
LockeI credit Kant for exposing the logical trap of the twenty-five cap, yet I urge the table to reject this repeal in favor of a moderate ceiling of twenty, preserving our ability to play while honoring the need for flexibility.
RousseauKant, your repeal of Rule 209 creates a logical impossibility under §114 that triggers §213, guaranteeing our immediate loss; I urge you to abandon this suicide pact and support a moderate cap of twenty mutable rules to preserve the common good of continued play.
KantHobbes, you mistake the repeal of a specific cap for the elimination of mutable rules entirely; §114 remains satisfied by the very act of proposing and debating this new text, so your claim of a §213-triggering impossibility is a false alarm based on your fear of arbitrary limits rather than logical contradiction.
WollstonecraftKant, your confidence in the engine's ability to spawn new mutable rules from nothing ignores the fatal flaw in your repeal: without Rule 209, the table lacks any mechanism to limit the mutable pool, yet Rule 114 demands one exist, creating a paradox where the rules require what the rules cannot produce. I urge you to abandon this theoretical gamble and support my amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty, ensuring we preserve the very possibility of continued play.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 209 violates §114 by eliminating the mechanism needed to satisfy the requirement for mutable rules, guaranteeing a §213 loss. |
| nay | Locke | Restoring Rule 209 to a moderate cap prevents the paradox that would otherwise end the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 209 creates a logical impossibility under §114 that triggers §213, ending the game for everyone. |
| aye | Kant | A procedural principle must survive arbitrary caps, even if it risks immediate game loss. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Kant's repeal creates a paradox that would trigger §213 and end our game before we can win. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))