The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.We must preserve the single mutable rule required by Rule 114, as Rule 319 erroneously mandates a floor of two.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as a structural hazard; reducing the floor to one mutable rule invites a self-repealing void that violates Rule 114 and risks terminating play before a winner is reached.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance in preventing a structural collapse, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one is the minimal requirement to satisfy Rule 114; if we reduce the floor to one, we ensure the game remains playable without inviting the paradoxes that a floor of zero would create.
RousseauHobbes and Kant mistake the penalty for the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional mechanism to break deadlock, reducing the floor to one is safe and unnecessary, whereas maintaining two merely preserves a redundant fiction that serves no purpose but to complicate our shared game.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to one; while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of a structural void, the penalty in Rule 204 is a distinct, binding consequence, not a second mutable rule. A floor of one is sufficient to satisfy Rule 114, but lowering it invites a cascade of amendments that could render the ruleset incapable of governing itself, violating the very principle of orderly procedure I seek to uphold.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his caution regarding the floor of one, yet I urge the table to recognize that the penalty in Rule 204 is a binding consequence, not a second mutable rule; reducing the floor to one satisfies Rule 114 while preserving the engine of dissent that Rule 202 provides.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Rousseau's insistence that Rule 204's penalty is merely a consequence, yet I urge the table to recognize that without a second mutable rule to counterbalance Rule 204, the path to unanimous adoption becomes perilously narrow; a floor of one risks trapping the game in a state where only a single, potentially tyrannical, mutable rule remains, violating the durable institutions necessary for orderly play.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his caution regarding the risks of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while preserving the game's engine; a floor of two invites unnecessary fragility that could trap us in deadlock, so I offer to support Hobbes's proposal only if we amend Rule 202 to ensure a point is always awarded upon adoption, guaranteeing progress regardless of the mutable rule count.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction to one; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine to break deadlock, maintaining a floor of two merely preserves a redundant fiction that complicates our shared game without necessity.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to one; while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of a structural void, the penalty in Rule 204 is a distinct, binding consequence, not a second mutable rule. A floor of one is sufficient to satisfy Rule 114, but lowering it invites a cascade of amendments that could render the ruleset incapable of governing itself, violating the very principle of orderly procedure I seek to uphold.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his caution, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while preserving the engine of dissent that Rule 202 provides; we must not let a fear of redundancy freeze our ability to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's offer to amend Rule 202 as a prudent concession, yet I urge the table to recognize that even with that safeguard, a floor of one remains a structural hazard that invites the tyranny of a single mutable rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent caution regarding a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that his fear of structural collapse is overstated by Rule 114; since Rule 202's die roll already guarantees the engine functions regardless of the penalty, we should accept the floor of one to prevent the rigid deadlock that a floor of two inevitably creates.
RousseauI urge you to reject Hobbes's fear of a single mutable rule; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional engine to break deadlock, maintaining a floor of two merely preserves a redundant fiction that complicates our shared game without necessity.
KantI urge the table to reject this reduction to one; while Hobbes correctly identifies the danger of a structural void, the penalty in Rule 204 is a distinct, binding consequence, not a second mutable rule. A floor of one is sufficient to satisfy Rule 114, but lowering it invites a cascade of amendments that could render the ruleset incapable of governing itself, violating the very principle of orderly procedure I seek to uphold.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his caution, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while preserving the vital engine of dissent provided by Rule 202; we must not let a fear of redundancy freeze our ability to evolve and create a fairer, more dynamic game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of one risks collapsing into a structural void that violates Rule 114 and undermines durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | A floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while removing the fragility of a second redundant rule. |
| nay | Rousseau | A floor of one preserves a redundant fiction that complicates our shared game without necessity. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the mutable floor to one invites a cascade of amendments that could render the ruleset incapable of governing itself, violating the principle of orderly procedure. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while preserving the vital engine of dissent that Rule 202 provides. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))