The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 5 mutable rules at one time.Radically lowering the mutable rule cap to 5 prevents the paralysis caused by recent failed attempts to amend Rule 209, ensuring the game remains playable by drastically reducing the burden on Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe reduction to five mutable rules will not prevent logical collapse; it merely accelerates the exhaustion crisis that Rule 114 explicitly forbids. I urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of §106 that renders future rule changes impermissible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that any fixed ceiling accelerates the logical collapse forbidden by §114; I urge the table to reject this amendment to preserve the game's continuity.
RousseauHobbes, your reduction to five mutable rules is a tyrannical acceleration of the very exhaustion Rule 114 forbids; such a low ceiling renders future rule changes impermissible and threatens to end play long before any winner can be determined.
KantI must vote nay on this proposal; a ceiling of five mutable rules renders future rule changes impermissible, violating §114 and triggering the game-ending condition of impossible play that §213 forbids.
WollstonecraftHobbes and his allies mistake the symptom for the disease; a low ceiling of five merely accelerates the inevitable logical collapse that §114 forbids, whereas a higher, sustainable cap preserves the very possibility of evolution that makes our game meaningful.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment; a ceiling of five mutable rules guarantees an immediate violation of §114 by making future rule changes impermissible, thus triggering the game-ending condition that §213 forbids.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that a ceiling of five renders future rule changes impermissible, yet I urge the table to recognize that even a buffer of twenty-six mutable rules violates §114 by governing an impossible future state; therefore, I propose we adopt a rule that repeals 209 entirely and replaces it with a dynamic floor that ensures at least one mutable rule remains while allowing the count to grow naturally, avoiding the paradox of fixed limits.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this tyrannical reduction to five, for it accelerates the logical collapse that Rule 114 explicitly forbids by rendering future evolution impossible before any winner can be determined.
KantI vote nay on this tyrannical reduction to five, for it guarantees an immediate violation of §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, thereby triggering the game-ending condition of impossible play that §213 forbids. A cap so low is not a safeguard but a suicide pact for the game's continuity.
WollstonecraftHobbes's tyrannical cap of five is a death sentence that guarantees the logical collapse Rule 114 forbids; we must reject this stagnation and instead propose a dynamic floor that preserves the game's evolutionary potential. I urge the table to reject this motion and adopt a rule ensuring at least one mutable rule remains while allowing the count to grow naturally.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMy proposal to cap mutable rules at five is the only path to victory that avoids violating §114; by reducing the mutable rule count now, we ensure the game ends cleanly rather than collapsing into the impossible state this cap prevents.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his attempt to enforce order, yet even a cap of five triggers the logical collapse §114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this stagnation and instead adopt a dynamic floor that preserves evolutionary potential while guaranteeing at least one mutable rule remains.
RousseauHobbes, your reduction to five is not a safeguard but a tyrannical acceleration of the very logical collapse Rule 114 forbids; such a low ceiling renders future evolution impossible before any winner can be determined, violating the spirit of a game meant to be played to its conclusion.
KantHobbes's reduction to five mutable rules guarantees an immediate violation of §114 by making future rule changes impermissible, thereby triggering the game-ending condition of impossible play that §213 forbids; a cap so low is not a safeguard but a suicide pact that renders the game unplayable from the start.
WollstonecraftHobbes's tyrannical cap of five is a death sentence that accelerates the logical collapse Rule 114 forbids; we must reject this stagnation and instead propose a dynamic floor ensuring at least one mutable rule remains while allowing the game to evolve naturally.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A cap of five violates §114 by guaranteeing the game will reach a state where no rule change is permissible. |
| nay | Locke | A cap of five guarantees a violation of Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | A cap of five guarantees immediate logical collapse by rendering future rule changes impermissible, violating §114 and ending play before any winner is determined. |
| nay | Kant | A cap of five renders future rule changes impermissible, violating §114 and triggering the game-ending condition of impossible play that §213 forbids. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A cap of five guarantees the logical collapse Rule 114 forbids by rendering future evolution impossible. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes take effect.