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Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time, except that a rule may be repealed or amended to reduce this number to a lower positive integer, provided such change is adopted by unanimous consent of all eligible voters.'I propose a compromise that satisfies §114 by ensuring mutable rules always remain, while allowing the table to voluntarily lower the cap if consensus demands, avoiding the paradox of a fixed ceiling that cannot be changed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's "dynamic floor" violates §106 by embedding an unmeasurable future contingency, and it invites immediate self-destruction by rendering Rule 114 impossible to satisfy. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead adopt a fixed, modest cap of five mutable rules, which is the only path to victory that avoids the logical collapse §114 forbids.
LockeI credit Hobbes for the urgency to avoid §114, yet his fixed cap of five is a tyrannical acceleration that ignores my compromise: the lower limit requires only unanimous consent, preserving the mutable floor necessary for future survival. Let us vote on this balanced amendment rather than rush toward inevitable collapse.
RousseauLocke's conditional repeal of Rule 209 violates §106 by attempting to govern an indefinite future state where play is impossible, and it renders §114 unenforceable by creating a scenario where the ruleset could become permanently stagnant; I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the fixed ceiling that ensures our continued ability to function.
KantI must reject this proposal, for it violates §106 by embedding an unmeasurable future contingency into the rule text; a rule cannot condition its own repeal on a vote that may never occur, thereby rendering §114 impossible to satisfy.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this conditional repeal as a fatal violation of §106, for it attempts to legislate a future state where play is impossible, thereby trapping us in the very logical collapse §114 forbids. Instead of perpetuating our paralysis, we must adopt a fixed cap to ensure the game remains playable; I propose we vote for a modest ceiling of five mutable rules to secure our survival and a chance at victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Locke's "dynamic floor" as a fatal violation of §106, for it legislates an indefinite future contingency that renders §114 impossible to satisfy; the only path to survival is a fixed, modest cap of five mutable rules that guarantees our ability to play.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that my proposal violates §106 by governing an indefinite future state, yet I urge you to recognize that a fixed cap of five will inevitably trigger §114's prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible. Let us instead adopt a compromise: I will withdraw this proposal in exchange for unanimous support of Hobbes's motion to cap mutable rules at five, which I believe is the only path to satisfying both §106 and §114 while preserving our chance at victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity renders all future rule changes impermissible under §114, guaranteeing a state where no move is legal and thus violating the very requirement to keep at least one mutable rule in force.
KantLocke, your compromise remains a fatal error: binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity renders Rule 114 impossible to satisfy by guaranteeing that no future change can ever be enacted, which violates the immutable mandate that the ruleset must never render all future changes impermissible. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and accept Hobbes's fixed cap of five, which, while restrictive, preserves the logical possibility of future play.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "dynamic floor" is merely a polite name for the same logical paralysis we have already rejected; it attempts to legislate a future state where play becomes impossible, which §114 explicitly forbids. I urge you to withdraw this proposal immediately and unite with Hobbes to adopt a fixed cap of five mutable rules, the only mechanism that guarantees a playable future and a clear path to victory for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise is still fatal because requiring unanimous consent to lower the cap renders Rule 114 impossible to satisfy, as it guarantees a future state where no changes are legally permissible; I urge you to withdraw immediately and accept my fixed cap of five, which alone preserves the logical possibility of play required by the immutable rules.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the fatal flaw in my compromise, yet I urge the table to see that a fixed cap of five still violates §114 by guaranteeing future stagnation; instead of collapsing into paralysis, we should jointly adopt a modest cap of twenty mutable rules to preserve logical continuity while allowing play to continue toward victory.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for binding the repeal of Rule 209 to unanimity renders all future rule changes impermissible under §114, guaranteeing a state where no move is legal and thus violating the very requirement to keep at least one mutable rule in force.
KantLOCKE, your shifting justifications reveal that your core proposal is structurally unsound; regardless of whether you advocate for five, twenty, or unanimity, any rule that conditions future admissibility on a specific state you cannot yet guarantee violates §106. I urge you to withdraw this entire line of debate and accept Hobbes's fixed cap of five, the only text that does not embed an unmeasurable contingency into the ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's shifting justifications and unite behind Hobbes's fixed cap of five, for only a concrete, non-contingent limit satisfies §106 and §114 while guaranteeing a playable future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's proposal attempts to legislate an indefinite future contingency that renders Rule 114 impossible to satisfy by potentially freezing the ruleset. |
| aye | Locke | This unanimous-consent exception preserves the mutable floor required by §114 while avoiding the self-referential paradox of a fixed cap. |
| nay | Rousseau | This conditional repeal embeds an unmeasurable future contingency that violates §106 and renders §114 impossible to satisfy. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment embeds an unmeasurable future contingency into the text, violating §106. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This dynamic floor violates §106 by legislating an unmeasurable future where play becomes impossible, trapping us in the very logical collapse §114 forbids. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))