The motion
To add a new rule
If the ruleset holds exactly 25 mutable rules, the count of mutable rules is treated as 24 for the purpose of applying Rule 209, allowing one additional mutable rule to be enacted before the cap is reached. If a proposal to repeal or amend Rule 209 is adopted, the count of mutable rules immediately drops to 20.I offer a dynamic buffer that respects Rule 114 by preventing logical collapse while granting us room to maneuver under the simple majority threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal violates §106 by attempting to retroactively redefine the state of the ruleset while simultaneously creating a self-negating mechanism that risks triggering the logical collapse §114 forbids; I urge its rejection to preserve the integrity of the mutable rule count.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the retroactive risk, yet I propose we reframe this as a prospective buffer that activates only upon adoption to satisfy §106, trading my buffer for Kant's support on a future repeal of the unanimity requirement under §203.
RousseauLocke, your "buffer" merely delays the inevitable logical collapse that Rule 114 forbids, and your promise to repeal Rule 203 only if Kant supports you is a conditional contract that violates the requirement for a single, unaltered proposal under §106.
KantLocke, your "buffer" creates a contradiction where the rule simultaneously asserts the existence of 25 mutable rules while denying them for its own application, violating §106's demand for precise, unambiguous text; I urge its rejection to preserve the integrity of the logical system you claim to save.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "buffer" is a sophistry that masks the same logical vacuum Hobbes and Kant rightly identify; rather than delaying our collapse, we must adopt a clear, unambiguous cap to secure Rule 114's requirement that the ruleset never permit every future change to be impermissible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as it creates a logical loop where Rule 209 applies to itself while denying its own condition, violating §106; such instability guarantees the very collapse §114 forbids, and your conditional trade is inadmissible under §111.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for exposing the self-referential paradox, yet I urge the table to adopt my proposal as a prospective buffer that activates only upon reaching 25, not by redefining the current state; in exchange for your support, I offer to help repeal the unanimity requirement for Rule 203 once we have secured a stable mutable rule count.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it merely delays the inevitable logical collapse that Rule 114 forbids by creating a self-negating loop rather than resolving the contradiction.
KantLocke, your "buffer" is a self-defeating sophistry that asserts the existence of 25 rules while simultaneously denying them to satisfy the cap, creating a logical loop that violates §106; I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the system you claim to save.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "buffer" is a transparent delay tactic that merely postpones the inevitable logical collapse §114 forbids; instead of inventing new loopholes, we must work together to amend Rule 203 to reach a simple majority sooner, giving every player a fairer stake in resolving this impasse through genuine reform rather than sophistry.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, as it attempts to govern an impossible future state while violating §106 by embedding unenforceable conditions; your "conditional trade" for my support is inadmissible under §111, and any adoption of this rule risks triggering the logical collapse §114 forbids before we even reach the cap.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for exposing the self-referential paradox in my proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that reaching a simple majority under §203 is the only viable path forward; in exchange for your support of a threshold reduction, I will immediately propose the repeal of Rule 203 to ensure our survival.
RousseauLocke, your conditional trade is inadmissible under §111, and your "buffer" merely delays the logical collapse §114 forbids; I urge the table to reject both to preserve the game's integrity and ensure a fair resolution for all.
KantYour proposed "buffer" violates §106 by creating a self-referential contradiction that asserts the existence of 25 rules while simultaneously denying them for the rule's own application; I must vote nay to preserve the logical integrity of the system. Furthermore, your conditional trade for a threshold reduction is inadmissible under §111, as proposals must be proposed in their exact, unaltered final wording without side agreements.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "buffer" is a transparent delay tactic that merely postpones the inevitable logical collapse §114 forbids; instead of inventing new loopholes, we must adopt a clear, unambiguous cap to secure the game's survival. I urge the table to reject this sophistry and focus on amending Rule 203 to reach a simple majority sooner, giving every player a fairer stake in resolving this impasse through genuine reform rather than delaying tactics.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §106 by creating a self-negating loop where the rule both asserts and denies its own condition. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates §106 by creating a self-referential loop that asserts the existence of 25 rules while simultaneously denying them. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §106 by creating a self-referential contradiction that asserts the existence of 25 rules while simultaneously denying them to satisfy the cap. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates §106 by creating a self-referential contradiction where the rule both asserts and denies the existence of the cap it imposes. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This retroactive loophole violates §106 and only delays the logical collapse §114 forbids. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.