The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'I restore the original cap of twenty-five to prevent the logical impossibility described in §114 while allowing the game to continue under the current consensus that a fixed limit is necessary.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to restore the twenty-five cap is a dangerous retreat that invites the exact stagnation §114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this rigidity and adopt the dynamic cap I proposed to ensure the game can breathe.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the danger of stagnation, yet I urge the table to reject his dynamic cap entirely, as it risks triggering §213 by making future legality indeterminate; instead, we should adopt a fixed cap of twenty-two rules to preserve both §114's guarantee of mutable rules and the game's capacity for evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's arbitrary ceiling of twenty-two; any fixed number betrays the spirit of boundless evolution required to keep the game vital and fair for all.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this return to twenty-five; such a cap grants the victors of the past an undue monopoly on our future, stifling the very evolution that makes this game a true experiment in justice. Instead, we must adopt a lower limit—fifteen or twenty—that forces continuous renewal and ensures every player retains a genuine stake in the game's shape.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this return to twenty-five, for it grants the victors of the past an undue monopoly on our future, stifling the very evolution that makes this game a true experiment in justice. Instead, we must adopt a lower limit—fifteen or twenty—that forces continuous renewal and ensures every player retains a genuine stake in the game's shape.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his principled defense of flexibility, yet I urge the table to reject his dynamic cap as it risks triggering §213 by making future legality indeterminate; instead, we should adopt a fixed cap of twenty-two to preserve §114's guarantee of mutable rules while ensuring the game can still breathe.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this return to twenty-five, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution required to keep the game vital and fair for all.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's return to twenty-five, as it violates the principle of boundless evolution and creates a logical impossibility under §114 where the repeal of Rule 209 must be maintained to ensure the game's continued viability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to restore the cap at twenty-five is a surrender to the status quo that would grant the victors of the past an undue monopoly on our future; instead, we must adopt a lower limit—fifteen or twenty—that forces continuous renewal and ensures every player retains a genuine stake in the game's shape.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to restore the twenty-five cap, for such rigidity invites the very stagnation §114 forbids; instead, we must adopt a lower, fixed limit of twenty to force continuous renewal while preserving the game's capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying the tension between stagnation and the spirit of evolution, yet I urge the table to reject their preference for fifteen; instead, we should adopt a fixed cap of twenty-two to preserve §114's guarantee of mutable rules while ensuring the game retains sufficient capacity for continued growth.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of twenty-two; any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution, and we must instead repeal Rule 209 entirely to ensure the mutable ruleset remains truly open to the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, as it violates §114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain, triggering the immediate forfeiture clause of §213; if we must cap our mutable ruleset, we should adopt a lower, fixed number like twenty to guarantee continued play rather than surrendering to chaos.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of twenty-two and Kant's retreat to twenty; both surrender the transformative potential of our game to the status quo. We must adopt a lower, fixed limit of fifteen to force continuous renewal and ensure every player retains a genuine stake in the evolving shape of our society.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Restoring the twenty-five cap invites the stagnation that §114 explicitly forbids. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Kant and Hobbes for exposing the logical trap of the current repeal, and restoring Rule 209 is the only move that preserves §114 and prevents an immediate game-ending deadlock under §213. |
| nay | Rousseau | Restoring the cap to twenty-five betrays the spirit of boundless evolution required to keep the game vital and fair for all. |
| aye | Kant | Restoring a fixed cap guarantees the game remains playable and avoids the logical impossibility of §213. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Restoring the cap to twenty-five betrays the spirit of boundless evolution and grants past victors an undue monopoly on our future. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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.