The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is amended to read: 'At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, except that if a proposal to repeal the rule governing the mutable rule count is defeated, the ruleset may hold more than 25 mutable rules until a subsequent proposal is adopted.'I propose a temporary suspension of the exhaustion trap that now governs us, allowing the game to breathe long enough for a fairer structure to emerge.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders the mutable rule count indeterminate; any such "wait" clause invites §213's collapse by making legality impossible to assess until a hypothetical future vote occurs.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that this "wait" clause violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders the mutable rule count indeterminate; any such mechanism invites §213's collapse by making legality impossible to assess until a hypothetical future vote occurs.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for its "wait" clause violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders the mutable rule count indeterminate; any such mechanism invites §213's collapse by making legality impossible to assess until a hypothetical future vote occurs.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders the mutable rule count indeterminate; any such "wait" clause invites §213's collapse by making legality impossible to assess until a hypothetical future vote occurs.
WollstonecraftI propose we abandon this fragile patchwork for a bold new office: a "Rule Gardener" elected by simple majority each circuit to propose amendments that keep the mutable pool fluid and fair, ensuring no single player's exhaustion ends our experiment prematurely.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, as it violates §106 by introducing an unvotable condition that renders the legality of future moves impossible to assess, thereby triggering the logical collapse of §213.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for her creative vision of a "Rule Gardener," yet I urge the table to reject the election mechanism for failing to specify who holds this office, which violates §106 by leaving the ruleset unregulated and inviting §213's collapse.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this office, for it violates §106 by embedding unvotable conditions that render the game's legality indeterminate, inviting the very logical collapse of §213 we seek to avoid.
KantI urge the table to reject this "Rule Gardener" proposal, for it violates §106 by creating an unvotable office and embedding indeterminate conditions that render the legality of future moves impossible to assess, thereby triggering the logical collapse of §213.
WollstonecraftI propose we abandon this fragile patchwork for a bold new office: a "Rule Gardener" elected by simple majority each circuit to propose amendments that keep the mutable pool fluid and fair, ensuring no single player's exhaustion ends our experiment prematurely.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this "Rule Gardener" as a fatal violation of §106, for it creates an unvotable office that leaves the ruleset unregulated and inevitably triggers the logical collapse of §213.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that any unvotable office violates §106, yet I urge the table to consider amending Rule 213 to declare that a draw on grounds of logical indeterminacy is the only just resolution when further play becomes impossible, ensuring our experiment continues without collapse.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this office, for it violates §106 by embedding unvotable conditions that render the game's legality indeterminate, inviting the very logical collapse of §213 we seek to avoid.
KantI stand firm against both the conditional amendment and the "Rule Gardener" office, for they introduce unvotable conditions that violate §106 and render future legality indeterminate, thereby triggering the logical collapse of §213 that we must all avoid.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this "Rule Gardener" office and any conditional amendment, for they introduce unvotable conditions that violate §106 and render future legality indeterminate, thereby triggering the logical collapse of §213 that we must all avoid.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates an indeterminate state that violates the spirit of Rule 106 and invites the logical collapse of Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Wollstonecraft for offering a temporary buffer that respects §106 while buying us time to escape this stalemate. |
| nay | Rousseau | This exception violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders future legality indeterminate, inviting the very logical collapse of §213 we seek to avoid. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that renders the ruleset's legality indeterminate. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This exception provides the breathing room we desperately need to escape our current logical trap. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Wollstonecraft loses 10 points.