The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'Restoring the fixed ceiling is the only way to satisfy §114 and prevent the game from collapsing into an impossible state.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal; since Rule 209 already mandates a 25-rule ceiling and its repeal would immediately violate §114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible, this motion is both unnecessary and self-defeating.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that this repeal immediately violates §114 by emptying the mutable rule requirement; we must instead find a compromise that preserves a fixed ceiling to avoid logical collapse.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant motion, for repeating a defeated proposal violates the spirit of §114 by wasting our scarce turns on a logical nullity; let us instead focus on how to resolve our current impasse without imposing arbitrary ceilings.
KantI credit Hobbes and Locke for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 209 violates §114, yet I urge the table to reject this redundant proposal not out of fear of collapse, but because repeating a failed motion as if it were new wastes our scarce turns on a logical nullity; let us instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this motion, for Hobbes's repeal of Rule 209 immediately violates §114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; we must instead seek a dynamic mechanism that preserves mutability without the tyranny of a fixed ceiling.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant motion, for repeating a defeated proposal violates the spirit of §114 by wasting our scarce turns on a logical nullity; let us instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 209 violates §114, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current deadlock stems from a lack of a clear, non-paradoxical resolution to the mutable rule cap; we should instead focus on adopting a procedure that allows play to continue indefinitely without triggering §114, rather than repeating this redundant motion.
RousseauI urge you to reject this redundant motion, for repeating a failed proposal wastes our scarce turns on a logical nullity; let us instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal, for repeating a failed motion wastes our scarce turns on a logical nullity; let us instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke mistake the symptom for the disease; repealing Rule 209 does not grant freedom but rather collapses the game into a state of logical impossibility, while the current fixed ceiling of twenty-five merely delays the inevitable stalemate; let us instead adopt a dynamic mechanism that preserves mutability without imposing an arbitrary tyranny on the future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThis proposal is a nullity that merely wastes our scarce turns on a logical impossibility; we should instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the immediate violation of §114, yet I urge the table to recognize that our deadlock stems from an inability to resolve the mutable rule count, so we should instead propose a dynamic mechanism that preserves mutability without triggering logical collapse.
RousseauI urge you to reject this redundant nullity, for repeating a defeated proposal wastes our scarce turns on a logical impossibility; let us instead focus on resolving our impasse through a procedure that respects the immutable demand for at least one mutable rule.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal not merely because it repeats a failure, but because it violates the principle of non-waste inherent in a proceduralist system; if we cannot agree on a new path, we should not consume another turn on an obvious nullity. PASS
WollstonecraftLet us abandon this sterile debate over a redundant repeal and instead propose a dynamic floor that preserves mutability without tyranny, ensuring every player retains a genuine stake in the game's evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This is a defeated proposal that wastes our turn and violates §106's prohibition against altering rules except as voted. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing Rule 209 immediately violates §114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal wastes a turn by repeating a motion the table has already rejected as a logical nullity. |
| nay | Kant | This motion is a nullity that wastes a turn by attempting to re-adopt a change already rejected and rendered redundant by the existing text of Rule 209. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 209 immediately violates §114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible. |
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.