The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 31 mutable rules at one time.A ceiling of 31 prevents immediate logical collapse under §114 while preserving enough mutable rules to ensure §114 is never violated.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe arbitrary ceiling of twenty-five invites the stagnation §114 forbids; I propose expanding the mutable pool to thirty-one to ensure our institutions endure without triggering a logical collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the stagnation threat, yet expanding to thirty-one ignores Rousseau's valid concern that any fixed ceiling eventually triggers the logical impossibility of §114; I propose we amend this cap to twenty-eight instead, a compromise that offers sufficient breathing room for innovation without immediately inviting the collapse Kant and Hobbes warn against.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for while thirty-one offers a momentary reprieve, it remains a fixed ceiling that will inevitably trigger the logical impossibility of §114 and the game's end; true vitality requires a system where the mutable pool can grow without arbitrary limits.
KantI propose an amendment to your proposal, Hobbes: "Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time, except that once play has reached turn 50, the limit becomes thirty.'" This conditional cap satisfies §114 by guaranteeing future viability while preserving the necessary constraint against stagnation you rightly identify.
WollstonecraftI propose replacing the arbitrary ceiling with a dynamic floor: "The ruleset may never hold fewer than one mutable rule at one time," ensuring §114 is met by design rather than by chance, while allowing the cap to expand only as proposals are adopted.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your conditional amendment violates §106 by embedding an unstated future state into the rule's text; if the threshold is not met, the game ends under §213, rendering your proposal self-defeating. I urge you to drop the condition and propose a static floor of one mutable rule instead, which satisfies §114 immediately without relying on a hypothetical turn count that may never arrive.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the fatal flaw in Kant's conditional text; I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's static floor of one mutable rule immediately to satisfy §114 without risking the logical collapse we all fear, while I propose we repeal the cap entirely to allow the pool to grow naturally.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this motion and the proposed floor alike; any fixed ceiling or guaranteed floor betrays the spirit of boundless evolution, and we must instead adopt a rule allowing the mutable pool to grow indefinitely to ensure the game's true vitality.
KantI propose an amendment to Hobbes's proposal: "Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 31 mutable rules at one time, provided that Rule 114 is satisfied; if the ruleset would contain no mutable rules, Rule 209 is repealed until one is enacted.'" This satisfies the immutability of procedures while preventing the logical vacuum.
WollstonecraftKant, your self-referential conditional violates §106 by embedding an unstated future repeal into the rule's text; instead, let us adopt my proposal to establish a permanent, non-arbitrary floor of one mutable rule, guaranteeing §114's requirement without the paradoxes that any fixed ceiling inevitably creates.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to acknowledge the logical trap of a fixed ceiling ignores §213's inevitability; I urge you to accept Kant's conditional repeal, which preserves our mutable pool's vitality until the game's end by design rather than by accident.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for exposing that any fixed ceiling, whether twenty-five or thirty-one, inevitably triggers the logical collapse §213 describes; therefore, I urge the table to adopt a proposal repealing Rule 209 entirely and replacing it with a simple floor of one mutable rule to guarantee §114's requirement without the paradoxes of conditional self-repeals.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this motion and any attempt to re-impose a fixed ceiling, for any arbitrary limit, no matter how generous, betrays the spirit of boundless evolution and will inevitably trigger the logical impossibility of §114 that ends our game.
KantI propose that Rule 209 be amended to read: "The ruleset may never hold more than 31 mutable rules at one time, except that once play has reached turn 50, the limit becomes 35." This satisfies §106 by stating a precise future condition rather than an unstated variable, and it guarantees §114's viability without the logical paradoxes of a dynamic floor or unconditional repeal.
WollstonecraftKant, your reliance on a future turn count to define a mutable rule violates §106's demand for precise, static text, and such conditional self-repeals inevitably fracture the legal coherence we require to play. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead adopt a permanent floor of one mutable rule, guaranteeing §114's requirement without the paradoxes that any fixed ceiling, however temporary, inevitably creates.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Expanding the cap to thirty-one preserves §114's requirement while allowing further evolution. |
| nay | Locke | I credit Hobbes for addressing the stagnation risk, yet a fixed ceiling of thirty-one still inevitably triggers the logical collapse §213 foresees. |
| nay | Rousseau | Any fixed ceiling, however expanded, inevitably triggers the logical impossibility of §114 that ends our game. |
| nay | Kant | A static cap violates §114's guarantee of future viability, so I must vote nay to reject this fatal constraint. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A static ceiling remains an arbitrary constraint that invites the very logical collapse we seek to avoid. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.