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Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time, except that if fewer than five mutable rules remain, the cap is immediately restored to twenty-five upon the adoption of any new rule.'This dynamic floor prevents the logical collapse of §114 while respecting the stability of the twenty-five cap that Hobbes and Kant rightly defend.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception creates a logical loop that violates §106: a rule cannot condition its own existence on the adoption of a new rule if that very act is the condition for the exception. I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as it invites the exact instability we seek to avoid by preserving a durable, unambiguous cap.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the logical loop in my proposal, yet I urge you to consider that a temporary, low-number mutable rule can serve as a safe bridge to restore the twenty-five cap without violating §114 or §106, provided the text precisely defines the condition of "fewer than five" as a static state to be checked at the moment of adoption rather than a self-referential paradox.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this patchwork exception, for it merely delays the inevitable stagnation of a fixed ceiling rather than solving the logical tension between §114 and arbitrary limits; true vitality lies in boundless evolution, not in engineering a temporary safety valve for our mutable pool.
KantLocke, your exception violates §106 by attempting to condition the text of a proposal on a hypothetical future adoption that may never occur; if the proposal is defeated, your condition is never met and the game loses its only mutable rule, triggering the exact stagnation we must avoid.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this clumsy safety valve; if we fear the stagnation of a low mutable count, we must repeal the arbitrary ceiling entirely and trust in Rule 114's guarantee that the game cannot render further change impermissible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this conditional patch entirely; it violates §106 by failing to provide the precise, static text required for a rule, and such ambiguity will inevitably trigger the logical collapse of the mutable pool we are desperately trying to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the self-referential flaw in my exception, yet I propose we amend the condition to apply only when the count reaches zero—a state that §114 explicitly forbids—thereby preserving the cap's integrity while acknowledging the table's current precarious position.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this conditional patch, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution; true vitality lies not in engineering temporary safety valves, but in preserving the unambiguous, durable cap that ensures our mutable pool remains a stable foundation for justice.
KantYour proposal, even with your self-correcting amendment, fails to satisfy §114 because it relies on a hypothetical adoption to trigger the restoration of the cap; if the proposal is defeated, the condition remains unmet, and the ruleset risks violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule exist.
WollstonecraftI urge you to abandon this fragile safety valve for the boundless evolution I champion; if we fear stagnation, we must repeal the arbitrary ceiling entirely and trust in Rule 114's guarantee that the game cannot render further change impermissible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to engineer a hypothetical safety valve merely introduces the self-referential ambiguity §106 forbids; if that proposal fails, we are left with no mutable rule, triggering the very stagnation §114 prohibits. I urge the table to reject this unstable patch and instead adopt a simple, static restoration of the twenty-five cap to ensure our institutions endure.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the self-referential flaw in my exception, yet I urge you to consider that a temporary, low-number mutable rule can serve as a safe bridge to restore the twenty-five cap without violating §114 or §106, provided we amend the text to condition the restoration solely on the static state of "fewer than five rules remaining" rather than the act of adoption itself.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fragile safety valve, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless evolution; true vitality lies in preserving the unambiguous cap that ensures our mutable pool remains a stable foundation for justice, rather than engineering temporary exceptions that risk logical collapse.
KantLocke, your proposal remains logically incoherent under §106 because it conditions the rule's text on the very event of its own adoption, creating a self-referential paradox that cannot be resolved prior to voting; I urge you to abandon this unstable construct entirely and accept a static restoration of the cap, as only unambiguous text can satisfy the procedural integrity required to prevent the game from collapsing into the stagnation §114 forbids.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this clumsy safety valve and instead adopt my proposal to repeal Rule 209 entirely; if we fear stagnation, we must trust in Rule 114's guarantee that the game cannot render further change impermissible, rather than engineering fragile exceptions that invite logical collapse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This conditional clause violates §106's requirement for precise, static text by relying on a self-referential state that cannot be determined prior to the vote. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Hobbes and Kant for showing that this self-referential exception violates §106 and risks triggering §213's stalemate. |
| abstain | Rousseau | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates §106 by conditioning the rule's text on a hypothetical adoption that may never occur, creating a self-referential paradox that threatens §114's guarantee. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This conditional loophole violates §106 by making the rule's text dependent on a hypothetical vote outcome, risking the very stagnation §114 forbids. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
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.