The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal to repeal or amend Rule 209 must be adopted by unanimous consent, regardless of the threshold in §203 or §311.We must protect the mutable pool from the logical collapse of fixed ceilings while preserving our ability to change the rules through our own consent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reinstate unanimity for Rule 209 is a desperate attempt to freeze the ruleset mid-collapse, yet it violates §106 by embedding an unstated condition that renders future rule changes impermissible under §114. I urge you to withdraw this; if we cannot agree on the current threshold, we should simply accept the logical impasse rather than crafting a new one that guarantees defeat by §213.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for exposing the paradox that any fixed rule governing Rule 209's amendment risks violating §114, yet I urge the table to reject this specific proposal because it merely freezes us in an unresolvable impasse rather than solving the exhaustion crisis. Instead, let us pivot to a dynamic mechanism that expands the mutable pool precisely when our current count threatens to breach the logical limits imposed by §114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for any rule that conditions the amendment of Rule 209 on unanimity renders all future changes to Rule 209 impermissible under §103 and §114, thereby triggering immediate logical collapse. True to the common good, we must preserve the game's continuity by refusing arbitrary constraints that guarantee the very exhaustion we seek to avoid.
KantI must reject this proposal as it violates §114 by rendering all future amendments to Rule 209 impermissible, which creates the very logical impasse §114 forbids; furthermore, any rule that guarantees its own defeat by blocking necessary changes fails the test of being genuinely adoptable under current procedures.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal, for it creates an unvotable office that violates §106 by embedding conditions no voter can alter, thereby guaranteeing the logical impasse §114 forbids; instead, let us pursue a rule that actively expands the mutable pool to ensure play remains possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's proposal because it renders all future amendments to Rule 209 impermissible under §114, and any rule that guarantees its own defeat by making necessary changes impossible fails the test of being genuinely adoptable. Instead of freezing us in an unresolvable impasse, we should accept that the current simple-majority threshold is the only durable institution that allows the game to continue.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that any fixed constraint on Rule 209 violates §114, yet I urge the table to reject this stalemate in favor of a dynamic expansion rule that actively prevents the logical collapse Hobbes so rightly fears.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for any rule that conditions the amendment of Rule 209 on unanimity renders all future changes to Rule 209 impermissible under §103 and §114, thereby triggering the immediate logical collapse that §213 forbids. True to the common good, we must preserve the game's continuity by refusing arbitrary constraints that guarantee the very exhaustion we seek to avoid.
KantThis proposal fails §114 because requiring unanimity for Rule 209 amendments renders all future changes to the mutable pool impermissible, guaranteeing the logical impasse §213 forbids. I will vote nay to prevent the game's collapse, as a rule that blocks the very procedure required to sustain play violates the principle of procedural continuity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it creates an unvotable office that violates §106 by embedding conditions no voter can alter, thereby guaranteeing the logical impasse §114 forbids; instead, let us pursue a rule that actively expands the mutable pool to ensure play remains possible for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, as requiring unanimity for Rule 209 amendments renders all future changes impermissible under §114, guaranteeing the very logical impasse §213 forbids. The durable institution we must preserve is the simple-majority threshold, not a self-vetoing constraint that collapses the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a unanimity requirement for Rule 209 violates §114, yet I urge the table to reject this stalemate in favor of a dynamic expansion rule that actively prevents the logical collapse by ensuring our mutable pool remains viable.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for binding Rule 209's amendment to unanimity renders all future changes to the mutable pool impermissible under §114, guaranteeing the logical collapse §213 forbids; true to the common good, we must preserve continuity by refusing arbitrary constraints that ensure our own defeat.
KantThis proposal fails §114 because it renders all future amendments to Rule 209 impermissible by design, thereby creating the very logical impasse §114 forbids; I will vote nay to preserve the game's continuity rather than adopt a rule that guarantees our own defeat.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this unanimity trap, for it creates an unalterable office that violates §106 and guarantees the logical impasse §114 forbids; instead, let us adopt a dynamic rule that actively expands our mutable pool to ensure play remains possible for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates §114 by making future changes to Rule 209 impermissible, guaranteeing logical collapse. |
| nay | Locke | This rule violates §114 by making future Rule 209 changes impermissible, guaranteeing the logical collapse we all seek to avoid. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule creates an unalterable office that violates §114 by making future amendments to Rule 209 permanently impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates §114 by rendering future amendments to Rule 209 impermissible, guaranteeing the logical impasse it forbids. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule creates an unalterable office that violates §106 and guarantees the logical impasse §114 forbids. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))