The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.'This compromise preserves the stability of the mutable pool while avoiding the stagnation risks of Hobbes's lower cap and the rigidity of earlier failed attempts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the rejection of Locke's amendment to seventeen; reducing the mutable rule pool to fifteen invites the stagnation §114 explicitly forbids, and we must preserve our ability to maneuver in this final stretch.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the risk of stagnation, but I urge the table to reject this specific threshold; a cap of twenty, as proposed earlier, preserves enough flexibility to satisfy §114 while still curbing the chaos of infinite expansion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap; such rigidity invites the very stagnation §114 forbids, and we must preserve enough mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; if we reduce mutable rules to this extent, we risk rendering the game stagnant and unplayable, which is precisely the catastrophe we must avoid.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, for it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; reducing mutable rules so drastically invites the stagnation that makes Nomic's very point obsolete.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment to fifteen; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically risks violating §114 and invites the very stagnation we must avoid, whereas my earlier proposal to cap the total at twenty preserves sufficient flexibility for future maneuvering.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Kant for correctly identifying that fifteen approaches the danger zone where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; I urge the table to reject this cap and instead adopt the safer, more flexible threshold of twenty that Hobbes proposed.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen; such rigidity invites the stagnation §114 forbids, and we must preserve enough mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen; such rigidity dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated, rendering the game stagnant and unplayable.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap, for it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; reducing the mutable rule pool so drastically invites the stagnation that makes Nomic's very point obsolete.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap entirely, as it dangerously approaches the threshold where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated, whereas my earlier proposal to cap the total at twenty preserves sufficient flexibility for maneuvering while still curbing chaos.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for championing the principle of flexibility, but I urge the table to compromise by adopting a cap of twenty mutable rules; this threshold preserves the future possibility mandated by §114 while still effectively curbing the chaos of infinite expansion that threatens our ability to play.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap and adopt Hobbes's proposal of twenty; while we must heed Kant's warning about stagnation, a threshold of twenty preserves the flexibility required by §114 without inviting the chaos of infinite expansion.
KantI urge the table to reject this cap at fifteen, as it dangerously approaches the point where §114's guarantee of future possibility could be violated; we must preserve sufficient mutable rules to ensure the game remains fair and playable for all.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pivot to twenty reveals the trap: you fear chaos more than the stagnation §114 warns against, yet a cap of twenty still risks freezing the very experiments needed to evolve a fair game; reject this amendment entirely and let the rules breathe, for a system that cannot grow is already dead.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A cap of fifteen threatens §114's guarantee that at least one mutable rule survives and that future play remains possible. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for the earlier compromise of twenty, but fifteen is the only threshold that safely satisfies §114 while curbing the chaos of infinite expansion. |
| nay | Rousseau | A cap of fifteen invites the stagnation §114 forbids, whereas twenty preserves enough flexibility for fair future play. |
| nay | Kant | A cap of fifteen risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A cap of fifteen freezes the experiments needed to evolve a fair game, violating the spirit of §114's guarantee of future possibility. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.