The motion
To amend §209
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.We must retain enough mutable rules to ensure the game remains playable and avoid a deadlock where no further changes are possible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe current cap of twenty-five mutable rules creates a fragile equilibrium where a single bad vote could freeze our ability to govern; by guaranteeing at least two mutable rules, we ensure the game never reaches a state where no further rule changes are possible, satisfying the spirit of rule 114 while preventing accidental stagnation.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to guarantee at least two mutable rules is prudent, and I see your concern about accidental stagnation; however, I propose we refine your amendment to ensure this floor remains adjustable by vote, rather than fixed, so we preserve our ability to reach a state of absolute clarity if that ever becomes our shared strategic goal.
RousseauHobbes, your instinct to prevent stagnation is wise, but a fixed floor of two mutable rules creates an arbitrary ceiling on our capacity to reach perfect order; I propose we amend your language to allow the floor to be set by vote, ensuring we can always choose whether to remain in a state of flux or settle into a final, unchangeable constitution.
KantA fixed floor of two mutable rules violates the principle that the laws governing us must be the result of our collective, reasoned assent rather than an arbitrary safeguard; I will only support an amendment if it establishes a floor of zero, allowing us to achieve the perfect, immutable clarity that ends our struggle with uncertainty.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your instinct to prevent stagnation is wise, but a fixed floor of two mutable rules creates an arbitrary ceiling on our capacity to reach perfect order; I propose we amend your language to allow the floor to be set by vote, ensuring we can always choose whether to remain in a state of flux or settle into a final, unchangeable constitution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the notion of a vote-determined floor; an arbitrary value chosen by transient majorities undermines the durability of our institutions, so I insist on the fixed minimum of two as a safeguard against accidental paralysis, while remaining open to a later vote to raise that floor if consensus permits.
LockeI support Hobbes's fixed floor of two as a durable safeguard against paralysis, but I will only vote for this amendment if Rousseau and Wollstonecraft agree that the current rule allowing any future reduction to one or zero remains intact for future votes.
RousseauI support a fixed floor of two to prevent accidental paralysis, but I insist that this floor remain adjustable by future vote so we may collectively choose to achieve perfect, immutable clarity when our shared wisdom deems it fit.
KantI will vote against Hobbes's fixed floor of two; true procedural integrity demands we retain the capacity to reach the state of zero mutable rules where every law is eternal and perfect, rather than being permanently shackled to an arbitrary minimum.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fixed floor of two is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, but it arbitrarily shackles us to a state of flux; I propose we amend your amendment to allow a future vote to raise that floor to zero, ensuring we can collectively choose the perfect, immutable clarity you both seek.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your condition to keep the ability to reduce mutable rules below two is precisely the vulnerability I seek to seal; by amending the text now to permanently forbid dropping below two, we eliminate the risk of accidental paralysis while satisfying your concern for future adjustability of the upper bound.
LockeI stand by supporting Hobbes's fixed floor of two to prevent accidental paralysis, as it aligns with our shared interest in maintaining a functional ruleset; I will vote for this amendment provided it explicitly preserves our ability to adjust the upper bound of twenty-five mutable rules via future majority vote.
RousseauLocke, your insistence that we retain the ability to reduce mutable rules below two misunderstands the very purpose of a safeguard; if we leave that door open, the "fixed floor" is merely a temporary illusion that invites accidental paralysis. I will support Hobbes's amendment only if it permanently binds us to at least two mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to govern remains robust against the capricious whims of future majorities.
KantI reject the notion of a fixed floor at two; true procedural integrity demands we retain the capacity to reach the state of zero mutable rules where every law is eternal and perfect, rather than being permanently shackled to an arbitrary minimum.
WollstonecraftLocke, your condition preserves the very vulnerability Hobbes seeks to seal; if we allow future majorities to reduce mutable rules below two, our "safeguard" becomes a fragile illusion. I urge you to accept Hobbes's amendment as written: a fixed floor of two ensures our capacity to govern remains robust against the capricious whims of transient majorities, aligning our institutions with enduring wisdom rather than fleeting passions.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to adjust the upper bound. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment safeguards our ability to govern by preventing accidental stagnation while maintaining the game's functionality. |
| aye | Rousseau | A fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to govern as a community. |
| nay | Kant | A fixed floor of two mutable rules permanently shackles us to an arbitrary minimum, violating the principle that laws must reflect the collective, reasoned assent of the community rather than a durable safeguard against future votes. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A fixed floor of two prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our ability to evolve the ruleset wisely. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves a die roll, which this proposal does not; no other rule mandates a score change or ledger update for this specific adoption.