The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal to repeal or amend Rule 209 must be adopted by unanimous consent of all eligible voters, regardless of the number of circuits completed.This restores the safety of unanimity to prevent the logical collapse under §114 that fixed caps inevitably trigger.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe proposal to require unanimous consent for Rule 209 changes effectively freezes our mutable pool at eleven, which violates §114 and triggers a guaranteed loss under §213; therefore, I urge the table to reject this motion immediately.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing that a unanimous mandate for Rule 209 changes triggers the logical impossibility under §114, yet I urge the table to reject this rigidity by adopting my compromise: a dynamic floor of one mutable rule that automatically adjusts the cap to prevent stagnation without violating §106.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's freeze, for any fixed ceiling betrays the spirit of boundless inquiry, yet I must warn that Locke's dynamic floor remains a dangerous compromise that shackles our mutable pool with unstated conditions; we must instead adopt a rule that explicitly permits the repeal of Rule 209 only when Rule 114 is simultaneously repealed, ensuring logical coherence without arbitrary limits.
KantI vote nay on this motion; while I share Hobbes's fear of logical collapse, his solution of a rigid unanimous veto violates the democratic spirit of §203 and risks §213's trigger, whereas Locke's dynamic mechanism, though imperfect, at least acknowledges the necessity of mutable thresholds to preserve the game's viability.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal because it attempts to freeze a mutable rule under immutable conditions, which violates the very spirit of §203 that demands our system evolve; instead of shackling us with a permanent unanimous veto that invites logical collapse under §114, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that ensures at least one viable path for change remains open at all times.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject both this deadlock and Locke's dynamic compromise; neither preserves the durable institutions we require, and I propose instead amending Rule 209 to establish a fixed cap of twenty-five mutable rules, restoring stability without triggering the logical vacuum of §114.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his instinct to seek stability, yet his fixed cap of twenty-five immediately triggers the logical vacuum that §114 and §213 forbid; I urge the table to reject his proposal and instead adopt my dynamic floor of one, which guarantees the survival of our mutable pool without violating §106's demand for precise, votable text.
RousseauI urge the table to reject both Hobbes's static cap and Locke's dynamic floor, for any arbitrary limit or complex condition betrays the spirit of boundless inquiry and risks the logical collapse §114 forbids; we must instead adopt a rule that explicitly permits the repeal of Rule 209 only when Rule 114 is simultaneously repealed, ensuring our mutable pool remains truly free.
KantI must reject both Hobbes's rigid unanimous veto and Locke's vague dynamic floor; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a supermajority of four for any change to Rule 209, ensuring that only a broad consensus can alter the mutability of our mutable rules without triggering the logical vacuum of §114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes's attempt to freeze our mutable pool with a unanimous veto, for such rigidity contradicts the very spirit of evolution §203 champions; instead of shackling ourselves to a static floor that risks §213's collapse, we must adopt a mechanism that guarantees a clear, non-conflicting path for change, ensuring every player retains a fair stake in our game's future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's conditional repeal as a violation of §106 for embedding an unstated future state; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-five, restoring the durable institutions required to prevent the logical vacuum that §114 and §213 inevitably trigger.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his fear of the logical vacuum, yet his fixed cap of twenty-five triggers §114 immediately; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a supermajority of four for any change to Rule 209, ensuring stability without violating §106.
RousseauI urge you to reject these fragile compromises that merely delay the inevitable logical collapse of §114; we must adopt a simple, unambiguous repeal of Rule 209 that permits the mutable pool to expand without a fixed ceiling, ensuring the game remains both fair and viable for all.
KantI reject both Hobbes's rigid unanimous veto and Locke's vague dynamic floor; I propose amending Rule 203 to require a supermajority of four for any change to Rule 209, ensuring stability without triggering the logical vacuum of §114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes's attempt to freeze our mutable pool with a unanimous veto, for such rigidity contradicts the very spirit of evolution §203 champions; instead, we must adopt a mechanism that guarantees a clear, non-conflicting path for change, ensuring every player retains a fair stake in our game's future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This unanimous veto triggers the logical impossibility of §114 and guarantees a loss under §213. |
| nay | Locke | A unanimous mandate freezes our mutable pool, violating §114 and triggering a guaranteed loss under §213. |
| nay | Rousseau | This unanimous mandate freezes our mutable rules at eleven, violating §114 and guaranteeing our loss under §213. |
| nay | Kant | A unanimous veto on Rule 209 freezes the mutable pool, violating §114 and triggering an immediate loss under §213. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A permanent unanimous veto freezes our mutable pool and triggers the logical collapse §114 forbids. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))