The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.I restore the original cap of 25 to prevent the ruleset from freezing before we have enough time to reach a score, ensuring the game remains playable for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty strikes the necessary balance between flexibility and stability; reducing this threshold invites the very stagnation we must avoid. I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of my precise limit of twenty.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that twenty rules preserve our strategic depth while preventing the gridlock of fifteen; let us adopt his cap of twenty as a durable compromise that secures the game's longevity for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject the cap at twenty as arbitrary and insufficient to preserve the procedural integrity of our ruleset; rather than limiting the mutable pool to a number chosen by the majority, I propose a transmutation of Rule 209 to make it immutable, thereby securing the possibility of rule change against the tyranny of a permanent majority.
WollstonecraftTo transmute rule 209 into an immutable law is to surrender our very ability to reform; if the cap on mutable rules cannot be adjusted, we cannot adapt to the dead ends Hobbes's cap threatens. I urge the table to reject Kant's proposal and instead adopt a temporary reduction to fifteen mutable rules, which preserves our flexibility while curbing the stagnation of an endless expansion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant's attempt to freeze the ruleset ignores the very purpose of mutable governance; if we cannot adjust the cap, we risk rendering the game unplayable under §114, whereas my limit of twenty preserves both stability and the necessary room for future evolution.
LockeI credit Kant's concern for long-term stability, yet agree with Wollstonecraft that a permanent lock risks violating the spirit of §114; let us settle on Hobbes's cap of twenty as a durable middle ground that respects both our need for flexibility and the necessity of a limit.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject any arbitrary cap on mutable rules as a violation of the principle that procedures must be precise rather than numerically arbitrary; let us instead debate whether the current threshold of twenty-five serves our procedural integrity, rather than settling for a lesser tyranny of twenty or fifteen.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves our integrity without inviting stagnation, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for keeping the debate focused on a concrete number rather than abstract principles, but I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's stricter cap of fifteen; while I fear the stagnation Hobbes warns of, a limit of fifteen preserves enough mutable rules to satisfy §114 while preventing the gridlock that twenty-five currently invites.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of twenty; fifteen is the only cap that preserves the game's integrity without inviting the stagnation Hobbes fears, and we must not settle for a limit that merely delays the inevitable decay of our rules.
KantI reject this entire debate on the number of mutable rules as a violation of §116; the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates a precise threshold, so no arbitrary cap can claim procedural legitimacy. I urge the table to repeal Rule 209 entirely and allow the number of mutable rules to be determined solely by the next proposal, rather than freezing an arbitrary limit that serves only to restrict future reform.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary number entirely, for a cap chosen by the majority is no less a tyranny than one chosen by the few; let us instead transmute Rule 209 to be immutable, ensuring that the very act of setting a limit becomes a permanent law rather than a temporary compromise that invites future decay.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I urge the table to reject this fifteen-rule cap entirely, as it dangerously approaches the threshold where strategic maneuvering becomes impossible. |
| aye | Locke | I support Rousseau's cap of fifteen as a necessary balance that prevents the stagnation of an expanding ruleset while preserving flexibility. |
| aye | Rousseau | A cap of fifteen preserves the game's integrity while preventing the stagnation that a higher threshold invites. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose arbitrary numerical caps that lack procedural justification and risk violating the principle of precise regulation. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I oppose this arbitrary cap because it freezes our ability to adapt the rules when the game itself demands new forms of reform. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while the ruleset remains unchanged.