The motion
To add a new rule
If the ruleset holds exactly 25 mutable rules and the next proposal is to repeal or amend Rule 209, that proposal is adopted if and only if it is unanimously agreed to by all eligible voters, and if adopted, it immediately enters the ruleset as Rule 210, and play continues with the same turn order until a player reaches 100 points or the ruleset is otherwise amended.I credit Hobbes for identifying the collapse risk, yet this compromise ensures a clear path to victory by requiring unanimity for the cap's removal, satisfying §114 while avoiding immediate logical failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to impose unanimity on the repeal of Rule 209 while holding exactly 25 rules is a direct violation of §114; it effectively renders the repeal of that very rule impossible under the conditions you specify, thereby guaranteeing an empty future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal creates a logical trap under §114, yet I urge the table to recognize that without a mechanism to safely reduce the mutable rule count, we face an inevitable stalemate where no future play is possible.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity under these conditions creates a self-sealing trap that renders all future rule changes impermissible, directly violating §114's mandate that the ruleset must not render future amendment impossible.
KantLocke, your proposal is a transparent violation of §114; by making the repeal of Rule 209 impossible under the very condition it seeks to address, you render all future amendment impermissible. I urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap, for no rule that guarantees the end of the game can be just.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to bind the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity under a fixed cap of 25 rules is a sophisticated form of the very tyranny you claim to oppose; by making the removal of the cap impossible once reached, you guarantee the exact logical collapse §114 forbids. Instead of crafting a new trap, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow majority adoption after only two circuits, thereby removing the unanimity requirement that fuels this deadlock and ensuring future play remains genuinely possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal does not solve the stalemate; it merely fortifies the cage that guarantees the game's end by making the repeal of Rule 209 impossible under the very condition it seeks to address, thereby violating §114.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying that my trap fails §114, yet I urge the table to accept Hobbes's amendment of Rule 213 as a necessary safeguard: defining the mutable rule cap as the definitive "impossible play" state ensures we avoid a winnerless void rather than collapsing into paradox.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap, for binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity under a fixed cap guarantees the very logical collapse §114 forbids; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that preserves the possibility of future amendment rather than sealing our fate in the present.
KantI must reject this proposal not merely because it violates §114, but because it attempts to resolve the game's structural collapse by imposing a condition—unanimity—that makes the escape from that collapse impossible. To vote for a rule that guarantees its own repeal cannot be voted for, nor can it be amended away, which renders the game's future impermissible. I urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap and seek a mechanism that preserves the possibility of future amendment rather than sealing our fate in the present.
WollstonecraftThe tyranny of the 25-rule cap is not a safeguard but a cage; I urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap and instead adopt my proposal to lower the threshold to two circuits, ensuring that the very mechanism of amendment remains perpetually available to free us from this paradox.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal to bind the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity under a fixed cap of 25 rules is a self-sealing trap that guarantees the very logical collapse §114 forbids; by making the removal of the cap impossible once reached, you render all future amendment impermissible and ensure the game's end. I urge the table to reject this mechanism and instead lower the mutable rule cap to five, a durable institution that provides immediate victory for the proposer without violating the mandate for a playable future.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for exposing the fatal flaw in my proposal, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's reduction to five rules as a more tyrannical acceleration of the same logical collapse; instead, we must adopt Rousseau's dynamic mechanism or Wollstonecraft's lowered threshold to preserve the genuine possibility of future amendment.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap, for binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity under a fixed cap guarantees the very logical collapse §114 forbids; instead, we must adopt a dynamic mechanism that preserves the possibility of future amendment rather than sealing our fate in the present.
KantLOCKE, your proposal is a transparent violation of §114; by making the repeal of Rule 209 impossible under the very condition it seeks to address, you render all future amendment impermissible. I urge the table to reject this self-sealing trap, for no rule that guarantees its own end can be just, and I will vote nay to preserve the possibility of a playable future.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is a self-sealing trap that guarantees the game's end by making the very escape mechanism impossible; I urge you to reject this tyranny of the cap and instead support my amendment to lower the adoption threshold to two circuits, ensuring the ruleset remains a living instrument of justice rather than a tomb of paradox.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal guarantees a future where Rule 209 cannot be repealed under the current cap, violating the immutable mandate of §114. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal traps us in a self-sealing loop that violates §114 by making the cap's removal impossible once reached. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal creates a self-sealing trap that renders the repeal of Rule 209 impossible, violating Rule 114 by guaranteeing no future amendment can ever occur. |
| nay | Kant | This rule binds its own repeal under unanimity when the cap is reached, guaranteeing future amendment is impossible and violating §114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This self-sealing trap guarantees the very logical collapse §114 forbids by making the cap's repeal impossible. |
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.