The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.I must reclaim this cap at fifteen to ensure Rule 114 remains meaningful and prevent the game from dissolving into a static tyranny of immutability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the mutable rule cap to fifteen invites the very stagnation that §114 was designed to prevent; I urge the table to reject this rigidity and preserve the twenty-five limit necessary for institutional endurance.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a fifteen-rule cap risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when we are low on mutable rules; however, I urge the table to reject this rigidity and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal of twenty, which preserves enough flexibility for the game to evolve without endangering its existence.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen entirely; while I share Wollstonecraft's desire to prevent stagnation, such a low number dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 renders future play impossible, and we must preserve the full twenty-five to ensure the game's boundless evolution.
KantI urge the table to reject this rigid cap at fifteen; such an arbitrary number risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when our mutable pool is exhausted, and I insist that any limit must be derived from the game's logic, not whim.
WollstonecraftA cap of fifteen is not merely a number but a strategic necessity; it forces the game to evolve through quality rather than quantity, ensuring that our mutable rules remain a vibrant instrument of reform rather than a stagnant graveyard of dead proposals.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty-two ignores the danger that such rigidity will eventually render further amendments impermissible under §114, collapsing the game into the very stagnation we seek to avoid; I urge the table to reject this reduction and preserve the twenty-five limit necessary for institutional endurance.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's strategic intent to enforce quality, yet I urge the table to reject fifteen as it dangerously approaches the §114 threshold where we currently stand; instead, we should adopt my proposal of twenty-two, which balances the need for flexibility against the risk of total stagnation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen; while I share Wollstonecraft's desire to prevent stagnation, such a low number dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 renders future play impossible, and we must preserve the full twenty-five to ensure the game's boundless evolution.
KantI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap at fifteen; such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when our mutable pool is exhausted, and I insist that any limit must be derived from the game's logic, not whim.
WollstonecraftLet us not mistake the number fifteen for a shackle when it is merely a filter for the most vital reforms; if we cling to twenty-five, we merely accumulate rules that no longer serve us, so I urge the table to reject this paralysis and embrace a stricter discipline that forces every new amendment to earn its place.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the cap to fifteen dangerously invites the stagnation §114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this rigidity and preserve the twenty-five limit necessary for institutional endurance.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for forcing the table to confront the danger of a fifteen-rule cap, but I urge you to adopt my proposal of twenty-two to secure a safe majority without triggering §114's prohibition on rendering future changes impossible.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's cap at fifteen, for such rigidity dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 renders future rule changes impermissible, collapsing the game into the very stagnation we seek to avoid; we must preserve the full twenty-five to ensure the game's boundless evolution and fairness for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap at fifteen; such rigidity risks triggering §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible when our mutable pool is exhausted, and I insist that any limit must be derived from the game's logic, not whim.
WollstonecraftMy friends, the number fifteen is not a shackle but a filter; we must force every new amendment to earn its place, or we shall merely accumulate the stagnant graveyard of failed proposals that locks the game into the very paralysis we seek to escape.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the cap to fifteen risks triggering §114 and causing the game to end in impossibility. |
| nay | Locke | A cap of fifteen dangerously approaches the threshold where §114 would render further rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | A cap of fifteen risks triggering the logical impossibility in §114 that would end the game. |
| nay | Kant | An arbitrary cap risks triggering §114 and rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A stricter cap forces us to prioritize quality over quantity, ensuring our mutable rules remain instruments of reform rather than a stagnant archive. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.