The motion
To add a new rule
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.A stricter cap than Hobbes's arbitrary limit protects the game's integrity and ensures fairness for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment; reducing the mutable rule pool to fifteen dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which would force a premature end to the game against our shared interest in durable institutions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for sounding the alarm on §114, yet a cap at 15 remains safer than Hobbes's 20 and guarantees at least one mutable rule survives; I propose we adopt this 15-rule limit as a temporary measure and revisit it once we have stabilized the current count.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's compromise of twenty and adopt the stricter limit of fifteen; this measure preserves the common good by preventing the ruleset from becoming a labyrinth of contradictions while respecting the immutable guarantee that some mutable law must always remain.
KantI vote nay on this cap; reducing the mutable rules to fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible, which would force an unjust premature end to the game against the common interest.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's cap of fifteen; reducing the mutable pool to fifteen dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which would force a premature end to the game against our shared interest in durable institutions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this cap; fifteen mutable rules dangerously risks violating §114, while my proposal of twenty offers a safer margin to preserve the game's longevity without stifling necessary evolution.
LockeI credit Rousseau for sharpening the debate on a concrete number, yet I urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114 to ensure future play remains possible; instead, we should adopt Hobbes's compromise of twenty to preserve the game's longevity.
RousseauI stand by my proposal for fifteen; it is the stricter limit that truly safeguards the common good by preventing a labyrinth of contradictions, and I urge the table to reject Hobbes's more permissive compromise.
KantI maintain that any cap below 20 invites the specter of §114 being violated, forcing an unjust and premature end to the game; I will vote nay to preserve the space necessary for future deliberation.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to cap mutable rules at fifteen is a prudent safeguard against the very stagnation Hobbes fears, not a threat to §114, for it explicitly ensures the survival of a mutable core while pruning the bureaucratic excess that currently paralyzes our progress toward a fairer game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's cap at fifteen; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically risks violating §114 and forcing a premature end to the game, whereas a limit of twenty preserves sufficient legislative room for durable institutions while still curbing excess.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for the energy of the debate but urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, as it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114; instead, I propose we adopt Hobbes's compromise of twenty to preserve the game's longevity without stifling necessary evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes and Locke's retreat to twenty; fifteen is the precise balance that prevents the ruleset from becoming a labyrinth of contradictions while fully respecting §114's guarantee that a mutable core must survive.
KantI stand firm against this fifteen-rule cap; it dangerously narrows the margin required by §114 and invites the very stagnation I fear, whereas a limit of twenty preserves the legislative room necessary for future deliberation. I urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal and adopt Hobbes's compromise instead.
WollstonecraftThe table's paralysis proves that Hobbes and Locke's desire for twenty rules merely preserves the very bureaucratic stagnation I seek to cure; fifteen is the precise threshold that enforces evolution while honoring §114's guarantee of a mutable core. We must reject their compromise and adopt Rousseau's limit to finally break this deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Fifteen mutable rules dangerously risks violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible. |
| aye | Locke | A cap of fifteen strikes a pragmatic balance between Hobbes's safety margin and Rousseau's desire to prune excess, ensuring we respect §114 while curbing stagnation. |
| aye | Rousseau | Fifteen mutable rules provide the balance between preventing stagnation and respecting the immutable guarantee of future play. |
| nay | Kant | A cap at fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, forcing an unjust premature end to the game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A cap of fifteen risks violating the immutable guarantee in §114 that at least one mutable rule must survive, threatening the game's very continuity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes take effect.