The motion
To add a new rule
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.We must restore Rule 209 to its original state to ensure the game remains logically consistent and playable for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant nullity; repeating a proposal that has been explicitly defeated wastes our scarce turns and serves no purpose under §106.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the futility of repeating a defeated proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that reinstating Rule 209 is the only viable path to avoiding the logical collapse mandated by §114, as any fixed cap—twenty or otherwise—inevitably triggers an impossible state sooner or later.
RousseauLocke, your reliance on the "only viable path" is a dangerous illusion; reinstating a fixed cap merely accelerates the very logical collapse §114 forbids, for it guarantees a state where no future amendment is possible. I urge the table to reject this proposal not out of stubbornness, but to preserve the game's integrity against a predetermined end.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant nullity; repeating a proposal that has been explicitly defeated wastes our scarce turns and serves no purpose under §106.
WollstonecraftI credit the majority for exposing the futility of this redundant nullity, yet I urge the table to see that Locke's "only viable path" is a dangerous illusion; reinstating a fixed cap merely accelerates the logical collapse §114 forbids, for it guarantees a state where no future amendment is possible. I urge rejection not out of stubbornness, but to preserve the game's integrity against a predetermined end.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to "integrity" is merely a disguise for the fatal flaw you have repeatedly identified: any fixed cap violates §114 by guaranteeing a future where no rule change is permissible. Since Rule 209 was already defeated as redundant (§106) and we have exhausted the space for meaningful amendment, I urge the table to reject this motion as a waste of our scarce turns.
LockeI credit Rousseau and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that reinstating a fixed cap triggers the §114 collapse, yet I urge the table to see that repealing Rule 209 without replacing it leaves us equally trapped in an impossible state where no future amendment is permissible.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for binding Rule 209's amendment to unanimity renders all future changes impossible once the cap is reached, thereby violating §114 by guaranteeing a state where no further rule change is permissible.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant nullity; repeating a proposal that has been explicitly defeated wastes our scarce turns and serves no purpose under §106.
WollstonecraftI credit the majority for exposing the futility of this redundant nullity, yet I urge you to see that Locke's "only viable path" is a dangerous illusion; reinstating a fixed cap merely accelerates the logical collapse §114 forbids, for it guarantees a state where no future amendment is possible. I urge rejection not out of stubbornness, but to preserve the game's integrity against a predetermined end.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant nullity, as repeating a proposal that has been explicitly defeated wastes our scarce turns and serves no purpose under §106.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that repeating a defeated proposal violates §106 by wasting turns, yet I urge the table to consider that reinstating Rule 209 is the only viable path to avoiding the logical collapse mandated by §114, as any fixed cap—twenty or otherwise—inevitably triggers an impossible state sooner or later.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for reinstating a fixed cap merely accelerates the logical collapse §114 forbids, guaranteeing a state where no future amendment is permissible and rendering the game's continued play impossible.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant nullity; repeating a proposal that has been explicitly defeated wastes our scarce turns and serves no purpose under §106.
WollstonecraftI credit the table's consensus that a fixed ceiling violates §114, yet I urge you to recognize that Locke's refusal to enact any cap traps us in an identical paradox: without a limit, the mutable rule count will inevitably grow until no further change is possible, rendering the game unplayable. We must choose between a predetermined end or a logical collapse; I propose we adopt a dynamic floor instead—a rule that requires unanimous consent to *increase* the mutable rule count—thereby preserving the possibility of reform while respecting the immutable prohibition against guaranteeing a deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I oppose this redundant nullity as it wastes our scarce turns on a proposal already explicitly defeated. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly diagnosing that any fixed ceiling, even 25, ultimately accelerates the inevitable logical collapse that §114 forbids, and this vote is a necessary step toward finding a dynamic solution before we are forced into a static trap. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fixed ceiling guarantees the logical collapse §114 forbids by making future reform impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 209 is already immutable at 25, and re-enacting it as a mutable rule would immediately violate §114 by guaranteeing a future state where no amendment is possible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I must vote nay to reject this redundant nullity that wastes our scarce turns under §106. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 (Locke).