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 one.Reverting the floor to one mutable rule prevents the paralysis Hobbes and Locke fear while preserving the ability to stabilize the game through a single durable institution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the mutable floor to one is a desperate gamble that invites the paralysis we saw in your own failed attempts to stabilize this game; let us instead preserve our durable institutions by raising the floor back to two, where it belongs, to ensure our system remains robust against the chaos of a single-point failure.
LockeHobbes, I accept your diagnosis that a floor of one invites paralysis, but let us not waste a turn re-proposing a fixed floor of two when the table already moved to one in Turn 6; instead, I propose we amend this rule to explicitly exempt any move that restores a floor of two from the prohibition on reducing mutable rules below two, ensuring Hobbes's robustness without undoing Rousseau's recent consensus.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it creates a logical loop where the very act of restoring the safety you fear is forbidden by the rule you seek to preserve; true stability comes from accepting the floor of one as a key to unlock future fairness, not shackling ourselves with redundant exceptions that waste our precious turns.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a rule that creates a logical loop or permits exceptions to the principle that mutable rules must not be reduced below one; such a maneuver undermines the very procedure it claims to protect, and I must vote against any amendment that introduces ambiguity into the floor mechanism.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of a single mutable rule is misplaced; one rule is not a cage but the very engine of reform, and locking us into two only stifles the evolution necessary for true justice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to carve a legal exception for restoring a floor of two is a sophistry that would invite endless litigation under Rule 212, and I warn Kant that his opposition is merely fear of ambiguity, not a principled stance. If we cannot agree on a clear floor now, we shall default to the safer path of two mutable rules, which alone guarantees our institutions endure.
LockeRousseau, while I fear the instability of a single mutable rule, your logic that restoring a floor of two creates a loop is sound; rather than an exemption that invites litigation under Rule 212, I propose we simply remove the prohibition against reducing the floor to one entirely, trusting our consensus to maintain at least one rule, which avoids the rigid redundancy Hobbes insists on.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Locke's compromise is not a solution but a surrender to Hobbes's fear; by removing the prohibition against reducing the floor to one, we trust in the living spirit of our consensus rather than shackling ourselves with Hobbes's rigid redundancy, which would stifle the very evolution Rousseau champions.
KantLocke, your proposal to remove the prohibition entirely leaves us vulnerable to accidental paralysis, which violates the spirit of due process; instead, I propose an amendment that explicitly forbids reducing the mutable floor below two, ensuring a robust system without the logical loopholes your exception would create.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your insistence on a floor of two is a conservative retreat that denies us the very mechanism of reform; we must lower the floor to one to ensure the rules remain an instrument of justice rather than a static monument to your fear of chaos.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your faith in a single mutable rule is a dangerous gamble that invites the very paralysis you claim to avoid; if we cannot trust our consensus to maintain a floor of one, we must codify a floor of two to ensure our institutions endure against the chaos of a single-point failure.
LockeRousseau, your opposition to a clear floor ignores how the majority threshold shift in Rule 203 now makes our system robust enough to handle a single mutable rule without paralysis; let us accept your floor of one but explicitly exempt any move that restores the floor to two, ensuring Hobbes's robustness without undoing your recent consensus.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake fear for prudence; the "logical loop" you dread is merely the living table correcting your rigid attachment to a number, not a flaw in our democracy. If you truly value the common good, you will abandon this futile attempt to re-erect a wall of two mutable rules that stifles our very ability to evolve.
KantRousseau, your faith in the "living spirit" of consensus is precisely the danger that makes a rigid floor of two necessary; I propose we amend 209 to explicitly forbid reducing the mutable floor below two, thereby preventing the paralysis you claim to fear but which history has already demonstrated.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of a single mutable rule is a conservative retreat that denies us the very engine of reform; let us lower the floor to one now, for a system that cannot evolve is already dead.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I vote aye to raise the floor to two, ensuring our institutions are robust against the paralysis of a single-rule trap. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's return to a floor of two to prevent the paralysis we saw when the floor was one. |
| nay | Rousseau | Codifying a floor of two destroys the very flexibility needed to evolve our system and rewards Hobbes's fear over our collective good. |
| nay | Kant | A rule permitting exceptions to the floor of one creates the logical loops and ambiguities that undermine procedural integrity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support raising the floor to two, as a single mutable rule is a dangerous gamble that invites paralysis and stifles the evolution necessary for true justice. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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 one.
Rule 209 does not award points for adoption or defeat, nor does it create any ledgers, and the proposal text does not perform any additional named rule surgery.