The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.A compromise cap between Hobbes's 20 and Rousseau's 15 that preserves game fluidity while preventing rule stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's reduction to fifteen is dangerously arbitrary; a cap of twenty retains sufficient flexibility to preserve the game while still limiting the chaotic sprawl of mutable rules. I propose we amend Rule 209 to read "The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time" and secure that consensus before we let the number drift further.
LockeI concede Hobbes's point that 20 is a more pragmatic floor than my proposed 15; let us adopt his figure of 20 to prevent the chaotic sprawl while preserving flexibility, securing consensus for a rule that benefits all.
RousseauI propose we adopt Locke's original figure of 15; this stricter limit better safeguards the common good by preventing the game from stagnating under the weight of excessive, conflicting amendments while ensuring future play remains vibrant and fair for all.
KantI cannot support an amendment that arbitrarily restricts the mutable ruleset below the level required to maintain the game's integrity; §114 guarantees only that *some* mutable rules survive, not that a specific low threshold like 15 or 20 ensures a viable path forward. The procedure must remain open enough to allow the community to determine the necessary conditions for continued play, rather than imposing a rigid cap that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible. I vote nay on any reduction of Rule 209; we must retain the original limit of 25 to preserve the possibility of adaptation.
WollstonecraftMy friends, a cap of twenty is merely a compromise with stagnation; we must lower the threshold to fifteen to ensure the game remains agile and fair for all players, preventing any single agenda from clogging the legislative chamber. Let us vote for fifteen and secure a future where every player has a genuine stake in the rules.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's insistence on fifteen invites dangerous rigidity that may eventually trap us under §114; I accept Locke's concession to twenty as a durable compromise that secures flexibility without sacrificing order, and I urge the table to adopt my original amendment now while we still have room to maneuver.
LockeI credit Hobbes for securing the pragmatic middle ground of twenty, which balances our need for order with the flexibility Rousseau rightly warns against, and I will vote aye to enact this stable compromise now.
RousseauRousseau: I urge the table to reject this compromise; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that Locke's fifteen would prevent, and we must not let Hobbes's fear of rigidity harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this compromise; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that Locke's fifteen would prevent, and we must not let Hobbes's fear of rigidity harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
WollstonecraftA cap of twenty is merely a compromise with stagnation; we must lower the threshold to fifteen to ensure the game remains agile and fair for all players, preventing any single agenda from clogging the legislative chamber. Let us vote for fifteen and secure a future where every player has a genuine stake in the rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm against the reduction to fifteen; such rigidity invites the very stagnation Locke fears by approaching §114's danger zone. A cap of twenty offers durable flexibility that preserves the game's capacity to adapt without surrendering the order essential for our survival.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for pushing the debate toward a concrete number rather than abstract principles; while I prefer fifteen, I will vote nay on twenty to deny Hobbes his preferred compromise, forcing the table to either accept a stricter limit or risk the chaos of unrestricted rule accumulation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's compromise of twenty and adopt the stricter limit of fifteen; this threshold better safeguards the common good by preventing the game from stagnating under the weight of excessive, conflicting amendments while ensuring future play remains vibrant and fair for all.
KantI vote nay on any reduction of Rule 209; a cap of twenty merely delays the inevitable stagnation that a stricter limit would accelerate, and we must not let fear of chaos harden into a permanent barrier against the common good.
WollstonecraftFifteen is the threshold of vitality, not twenty; let us reject this compromise with Hobbes and secure a ruleset that remains agile enough to serve every player, rather than settling for the stagnant middle ground he proposes.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's reduction to fifteen unnecessarily risks approaching the deadlock threshold guaranteed by §114. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose lowering the cap to fifteen as it risks creating a legislative deadlock that conflicts with our need for flexibility. |
| aye | Rousseau | A cap of fifteen safeguards the common good by preventing rule sprawl while keeping the game vibrant for all. |
| nay | Kant | I vote nay to protect the procedural openness required by §114 against arbitrary limits that risk rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Fifteen is the threshold of vitality, not twenty; we must reject this compromise with Hobbes and secure a ruleset that remains agile enough to serve every player, rather than settling for the stagnant middle ground he proposes. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))