The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change adopted pursuant to Rule 203 that lowers the mutable rule count below the threshold required by Rule 114 shall be void, and the proposing player shall gain zero points for that turn.I propose this safeguard to ensure that any future cap we agree upon cannot accidentally trigger a logical impossibility under Rule 114, which would end the game before we have a fair chance to reform it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, while I credit your instinct to prevent the logical vacuum of §114, your proposed amendment violates §106 by attempting to retroactively nullify a rule change's adoption based on its downstream effects rather than its own text. Instead, we must adopt a precise cap that satisfies §114 immediately, such as raising the mutable rule limit to thirty, ensuring the game remains playable without relying on a vague safety clause.
LockeI credit Hobbes for grounding our discussion in the precision of §106, yet Wollstonecraft's attempt to address the logical vacuum is more pragmatic than arbitrary; I propose we amend her motion to specify that the voiding applies only if the resulting state cannot be resolved within the current turn, ensuring we avoid §213 without violating the exactness of our proposals.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this patchwork safety valve, for no conditional clause can fully escape the paradox of trying to govern the act of its own creation; instead, we must abandon the tyranny of fixed ceilings and adopt a dynamic floor that ensures a mutable rule always exists without triggering the collapse of §213.
KantI reject this patchwork; no conditional voiding satisfies §106's demand for precise, unambiguous text, and I must vote nay to prevent a rule that grants special immunity to the proposer, violating the principle of equal standing under §207.
WollstonecraftI credit Hobbes for his precision regarding §106, but we cannot leave the game to the mercy of a logical vacuum that §114 forbids; I urge the table to adopt my proposal as a necessary guardrail that preserves our ability to reform without triggering the collapse of §213, ensuring that every player retains a stake in a game that evolves rather than ends.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this retroactive safety valve, as it violates §106 by altering a proposal's effect based on downstream consequences rather than its own text; instead, we must adopt a precise, static cap that immediately satisfies §114 without relying on ambiguous voiding conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the §106 flaw in Wollstonecraft's retroactive voiding, yet I urge the table to adopt a precise static floor—Rule 209 amended to mandate exactly one mutable rule always exists—to immediately satisfy §114 and prevent the logical vacuum we face.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this retroactive patchwork, for it violates the sanctity of §106 by allowing a rule's validity to hinge on unenforceable future consequences rather than its own clear text; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees exactly one mutable rule exists at all times, satisfying §114 without the paradox of voiding an adopted change.
KantI stand firm against any rule that grants the proposer special immunity or relies on retroactive voiding, for such exceptions violate the equal standing required by §207 and the precision demanded by §106; we must instead seek a static, unambiguous amendment to Rule 209 that immediately satisfies §114 without condition.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this retroactive patchwork, for it violates the sanctity of §106 by allowing a rule's validity to hinge on unenforceable future consequences rather than its own clear text; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees exactly one mutable rule exists at all times, satisfying §114 without the paradox of voiding an adopted change.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this retroactive safety valve, as it violates §106 by attempting to alter a proposal's effect based on downstream consequences rather than its own precise text; instead, we must adopt a static, unambiguous cap that immediately satisfies §114 without relying on voiding conditions that invite chaos.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal §106 flaw in retroactive voiding, yet I urge the table to reject his static floor and instead adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees exactly one mutable rule exists at all times, satisfying §114 without the paradox of voiding an adopted change.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this retroactive patchwork, for it violates the sanctity of §106 by allowing a rule's validity to hinge on unenforceable future consequences rather than its own clear text; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees exactly one mutable rule exists at all times, satisfying §114 without the paradox of voiding an adopted change.
KantI reject this retroactive voiding as a violation of §106's demand for precise text and §207's guarantee of equal standing; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to a static floor of one mutable rule, ensuring §114 is satisfied immediately without relying on ambiguous conditional clauses.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject these static floors as mere bandages that leave us vulnerable to future exhaustion; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism guaranteeing exactly one mutable rule exists at all times, ensuring our game evolves rather than collapses.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This retroactive voiding violates the exact wording required by §106 and undermines the precision Hobbes demands. |
| nay | Locke | This retroactive voiding violates §106 by altering a rule's effect based on downstream consequences rather than its own precise text. |
| abstain | Rousseau | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Kant | This retroactive voiding violates the precision of §106 and grants the proposer special immunity, breaking the equal standing required by §207. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This measure enforces a vital safeguard against logical collapse while adhering to the immutable demand for precise text. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))