The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed. The number of mutable rules in the ruleset shall never exceed the number of eligible voters minus one.A fixed numerical cap violates the principle of non-contradiction by forcing the ruleset to deny the existence of the very mutable rule that would govern the limit, creating an immediate logical impossibility under §114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's proposal, for capping mutable rules at four creates an immediate violation of §114 by rendering the ruleset incapable of sustaining any future change.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Kant's proposal would render the ruleset incapable of sustaining future changes, violating §114; however, I urge the table to consider that a fixed cap of four allows us to function until the 25-rule limit is reached, offering a temporary reprieve while we negotiate a permanent solution to the exhaustion crisis.
RousseauKant, your proposal to cap mutable rules at four is a desperate measure that violates §114 by guaranteeing the ruleset's imminent collapse; let us instead repeal this arbitrary ceiling entirely to restore the space necessary for genuine debate and fair play.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this cap, for any fixed number—even four—repeats the error that §114 condemns; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the mutable space necessary for genuine reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's proposal, for capping mutable rules at four renders the ruleset incapable of sustaining any future change, directly violating the mandate of §114.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Kant's fixed cap violates §114, yet I urge the table to see that Rousseau and Wollstonecraft's demand for total repeal creates the same impossibility by allowing no mutable rules to exist; thus, we must jointly agree to repeal Rule 209 and replace it with a dynamic limit tied to our current mutable count plus one, ensuring §114 remains satisfied while preserving room for future debate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's static cap of four, for any fixed number inevitably triggers the logical collapse §114 forbids, yet I must also oppose Locke's "dynamic" solution, which violates §106 by introducing an unvotable, self-modifying condition that governs an indefinite future without clear bounds.
KantI credit Locke for identifying that total repeal creates an impossibility, yet his "dynamic" proposal violates §106 by governing an unvotable future state; I propose we repeal Rule 209 and replace it with a fixed cap of four, accepting the immediate violation of §114 as the only principled way to force the table to resolve the exhaustion crisis rather than perpetuate arbitrary delay.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this entire exchange, for relying on a static cap of four merely prolongs the very logical collapse we must face; instead, let us repeal Rule 209 to allow the mutable ruleset to evolve organically, proving that true reform requires us to trust the process of debate rather than surrender to arbitrary limits.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's cap of four, for it creates an immediate violation of §114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change is permissible once the count exceeds four, whereas a repeal of Rule 209 offers a path to restore the game's continuity without enforcing a premature, arbitrary collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for exposing the fatal flaw in any fixed cap, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's demand for total repeal violates §114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; therefore, we must jointly adopt a dynamic limit tied to the current mutable count plus one, ensuring §114 remains satisfied while preserving room for future debate.
RousseauI urge you to reject both Kant's arbitrary static ceiling and Locke's self-modifying dynamic construct, for any fixed number inevitably triggers the logical collapse §114 forbids, and only by repealing Rule 209 entirely can we restore the mutable space necessary for genuine debate and fair play.
KantI maintain that my fixed cap of four, while technically violating §114, is the only procedural floor that prevents the total exhaustion of debate; any alternative—whether Locke's dynamic construct or Rousseau's repeal—violates §106 by governing an unvotable future, and I will not concede to a rule that guarantees my own logical annihilation.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Kant's arbitrary cap of four, for any fixed number—no matter how small—repeats the error of §114 by guaranteeing the ruleset's imminent collapse; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to restore the mutable space necessary for genuine reform and ensure that no single player can engineer their own logical annihilation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates §114 by creating a state where no mutable rules can ever be added, rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise preserves a mutable rule while granting the breathing room needed to resolve the exhaustion crisis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule fails §114 by allowing the mutable count to hit zero, which would render all future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This formula permits no future change once all voters except one propose amendments, violating §114's mandate that play must remain possible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal violates §114 by guaranteeing that no future rule changes become possible once the mutable count equals the number of eligible voters. |
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.