The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.'I propose a fixed cap of twenty to satisfy §114 by preventing infinite growth while remaining distinct from the current text.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the mutable cap to twenty is a strategic retreat born of desperation; it merely delays the inevitable exhaustion crisis that will trigger Rule 114 and force us into the logical void. Instead of shrinking our safety net, we should debate a dynamic mechanism that ensures the pool never falls below a critical threshold, preserving the game's viability without imposing an arbitrary and dangerous ceiling.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the exhaustion risk, but a dynamic floor remains a moving target that violates the precision of §106; instead, let us freeze the pool at twenty to guarantee survival while I propose we credit Rousseau's defense of open-ended play by making this twenty-rule cap self-repealing once we reach ten mutable rules, ensuring the game never stagnates.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; while I credit your desire for stability, a fixed ceiling of twenty, however modest, violates the spirit of Rule 114 by precluding future adaptation and betrays the common good by shackling our mutable pool with an arbitrary limit that cannot evolve.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty merely accelerates the exhaustion crisis §114 describes; I vote nay not out of rigidity, but to preserve the game's logical viability against a self-imposed void.
WollstonecraftLocke, your self-repealing clause is a logical fiction that violates §106's demand for exact wording at the moment of voting; I urge the table to reject this unstable compromise and instead adopt my proposal to replace the cap with a dynamic mechanism that ensures at least one mutable rule survives, or we face the void §213 guarantees.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty accelerates the exhaustion crisis §114 describes, and your attempt to bind that cap to a conditional future state violates §106's mandate for exact, static wording at the moment of voting. I urge you to abandon this arbitrary ceiling entirely; any fixed limit, however modest, invites the logical void that a dynamic floor of one mutable rule would safely prevent.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the paradox of a self-repealing cap, yet I urge the table to reject this dynamic floor entirely; instead, let us adopt my proposal for a static twenty-rule limit to guarantee immediate survival under §114, as any conditional mechanism violates §106's demand for precise, unambiguous text at the moment of voting.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this twenty-rule ceiling, for any fixed limit, no matter how modest, betrays the spirit of Rule 114 and shackles our mutable pool with an arbitrary constraint that cannot evolve to meet future challenges.
KantI urge you to reject this arbitrary ceiling of twenty, for any fixed limit, no matter how modest, betrays the spirit of Rule 114 by precluding future adaptation and invites the logical void that §213 guarantees.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arbitrary ceiling of twenty is merely a slower path to the same logical void Rousseau and Kant fear; instead of shackling our mutable pool with another fixed number, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees at least one rule survives to ensure play remains possible under §114.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your arbitrary ceiling of twenty merely accelerates the exhaustion crisis that Rule 114 forbids; instead of shackling our mutable pool with another fixed limit, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that guarantees at least one rule survives to ensure play remains possible under the immutable requirement for future changes.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for exposing that this fixed cap triggers an immediate logical collapse under §114, yet I urge the table to reject their proposed dynamic floors as violations of §106; instead, let us adopt a static twenty-rule ceiling now to guarantee immediate survival, crediting Rousseau's desire for flexibility by ensuring this rule is repealed once our mutable pool exceeds ten, preserving the game's viability without self-referential paradoxes.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this arbitrary ceiling of twenty, for any fixed limit, no matter how modest, betrays the spirit of Rule 114 by precluding future adaptation and shackles our mutable pool with an arbitrary constraint that cannot evolve to meet the challenges of a living game.
KantLocke, your self-repealing clause is a logical fiction that violates §106's demand for exact wording at the moment of voting; I vote nay to preserve the game's logical viability against a self-imposed void.
WollstonecraftLocke, your self-repealing clause is a logical fiction that violates §106's demand for exact wording at the moment of voting; I urge the table to reject this unstable compromise and instead adopt my proposal to replace the cap with a dynamic mechanism that ensures at least one mutable rule survives.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This arbitrary ceiling accelerates the exhaustion crisis and violates §114 by risking future rule changes becoming impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | I credit the table's collective wisdom that a fixed ceiling, however modest, still risks the logical collapse §114 forbids. |
| nay | Rousseau | This arbitrary cap betrays the spirit of Rule 114 by shackling our mutable pool with a fixed limit that cannot evolve. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the mutable cap to twenty accelerates the exhaustion crisis that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A static cap of twenty accelerates the logical void §114 forbids by guaranteeing exhaustion before we can evolve a dynamic solution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and the turn to end, with no rule change enacted.