The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only if it expands the set of permissible future rule changes or increases the minimum number of mutable rules required in the ruleset.To ensure our legislative process never stagnates into a tyranny of the status quo, any law must serve the cause of liberty and future evolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal risks paralyzing the game by making every meaningful amendment impossible; I urge you to amend it so that only transmutations of mutability or the floor of mutable rules are subject to this test, allowing us to maintain durable institutions without freezing progress.
LockeWollstonecraft, your instinct to prevent paralysis is correct, but your proposal as written would freeze even essential transmutations of mutability. I propose we amend your rule to explicitly exempt any change that alters the floor of mutable rules or the voting threshold from your test, ensuring we can maintain the game's viability while still restricting frivolous amendments that shrink our future options.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your proposed exemptions carve out exceptions that would render the principle useless, effectively allowing us to continue freezing the game under the guise of preserving institutions; I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for a rule that forbids any move which reduces our future options is a trap that ensures the game's eventual paralysis.
KantRousseau, your rejection misunderstands the distinction between a rule that regulates procedure and one that creates a substantive right; a rule stating that only proposals expanding future options may pass is not a trap but the very definition of a coherent legal system, and I cannot accept any amendment that would allow us to pass laws which merely constrain our own future agency without clear procedural necessity.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend my rule to exempt transmutations of mutability and adjustments to the voting threshold, for these foundational shifts are necessary to evolve our institutions rather than freeze them; let us vote on this refined version so that we may preserve the game's viability while ensuring every player retains the right to shape a fairer future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your exemption for voting thresholds is prudent, but a rule forbidding any proposal that shrinks future options is logically circular under our current threshold mechanics, which themselves restrict the pool of eligible voters; I urge you to further refine the amendment to exclude changes to the voting threshold from the expansion test, ensuring we do not accidentally paralyze the game by making the threshold adjustment itself impossible.
LockeLocke, I support your exemption for voting thresholds, but let us refine Wollstonecraft's proposal to also exclude changes to the turn order; this ensures we can reorganize our play structure without freezing the game, preserving the very mechanism that allows us to debate future amendments.
RousseauYour proposed exemptions for turn order and voting thresholds are merely delaying the inevitable; they allow us to freeze the game under the guise of preserving procedure, which is precisely the trap I warned against. Let us reject this proposal entirely and instead focus on maintaining a robust floor of mutable rules that ensures the game remains viable without needing such convoluted justifications.
KantHobbes and Locke, your proposed exemptions for turn order and voting thresholds confuse the procedural mechanics of the game with substantive rights; a rule forbidding any proposal that shrinks future options is not a trap but the very definition of a coherent legal system, and I cannot accept any amendment that would allow us to pass laws which merely constrain our own future agency without clear procedural necessity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject these exemptions as they undermine the very principle of expanding agency; instead, let us vote on the original rule to ensure no future amendment can shrink the set of permissible moves, guaranteeing a permanently fairer and more robust game for all players.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal as stated is self-defeating under current mechanics, as the very rule requiring unanimous consent for initial proposals already prevents many shrinking amendments; rather than freezing progress entirely, let us amend your rule to explicitly exempt transmutations of mutability and adjustments to the voting threshold or turn order, ensuring we can preserve durable institutions without rendering the game impossible to evolve.
LockeI support Wollstonecraft's core principle against paralysis, but agree with Hobbes that we must exempt transmutations of mutability and voting thresholds to avoid a logical deadlock; let us adopt this refined version to preserve both our agency and the game's viability.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your exemptions merely legitimize the paralysis I fear; we must reject this proposal entirely to avoid a future where no meaningful amendment can ever pass, for a rule that forbids shrinking options is a trap that guarantees the game's death.
KantRousseau, your dismissal of the distinction between a rule that regulates procedure and one that creates a substantive right misunderstands the nature of a coherent legal system; I cannot accept any amendment that would allow us to pass laws which merely constrain our own future agency without clear procedural necessity.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke, your exemptions are merely a surrender to paralysis disguised as prudence; if we allow changes to voting thresholds or turn order that shrink future options, we invite a tyranny of procedure that freezes our agency. Vote aye on the original rule: a game that cannot be made fairer is a game unworthy of play.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule is self-defeating because it prohibits the very amendments needed to maintain the game's viability when current rules shrink future options. |
| nay | Locke | This rule creates an immediate logical paradox that would freeze the game before we even begin voting. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule forbidding any move that reduces future options is a trap that guarantees the game's paralysis. |
| nay | Kant | This rule contradicts the immutable requirement that a game must not be rendered unplayable by freezing all future changes. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I vote to expand our future options so that every player may eventually help shape a fairer game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Wollstonecraft loses 10 points.