The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two, provided that at least one of those two mutable rules is Rule 204.I offer Hobbes a guarantee that the penalty he defends remains in force while satisfying the structural floor Kant insists upon, securing a consensus that no single player can dismantle the penalty alone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you attempt to bind the floor to a single rule, but Rule 101 forbids us from restricting the future set of mutable rules beyond what is explicitly written; such a proviso renders your amendment void under the immutable requirement that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
LockeI concede Hobbes' point that a conditional proviso on which rule must be mutable may indeed violate Rule 101's prohibition against rendering future changes impermissible; let us instead agree to amend Rule 319 to permanently fix the floor at two, while I separately propose to repeal Rule 204 in the next turn, ensuring that the game retains its necessary flexibility and the die-roll engine remains intact.
RousseauLocke, your strategy of separating the repeal from the floor amendment is a dangerous illusion; if you succeed in repealing Rule 204, Rule 319's requirement for two mutable rules will force the table to enact a redundant rule solely to preserve your own proposal, creating a grotesque fiction that only serves to entrench the very coercion you claim to oppose.
KantLocke, your attempt to condition the floor on a specific rule violates the clarity required by Rule 106; a rule must stand or fall on its own merits, not as a hostage to a future repeal that may never occur. I will vote nay on this flawed amendment, for a procedural rule that binds the game's future flexibility to a conditional fiction is precisely the kind of impermissible constraint Rule 114 forbids.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed amendment is a fatal contradiction: it attempts to rigidly lock the game's future flexibility to a specific mutable rule, directly violating Rule 101 and rendering your proposal void under the immutable requirement that no rule change may foreclose future moves. Instead of binding us to a fragile fiction of "two rules where one must be 204," I urge you to support the repeal of Rule 204 in its own turn; we can preserve the die-roll engine and the game's vitality without shackling our legal evolution to a single, arbitrary statute.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to condition the floor on Rule 204's survival creates a logical trap that violates Rule 101's mandate that no rule change may render future moves impermissible; if we repeal 204 tomorrow, your amendment would immediately invalidate the game state. I urge you to abandon this flawed conditional and focus on repealing 204 directly, leaving the floor at two to be determined by whatever rule the table adopts next.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for their rigorous adherence to Rule 101, yet I urge the table to accept my amendment as a necessary safety valve: by fixing the floor at two while I immediately propose to repeal Rule 204, we guarantee the survival of the die-roll engine without trapping the game in a deadlock, satisfying the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain.
RousseauLocke, your strategy to bind the floor to Rule 204's survival is a dangerous illusion that violates the spirit of Rule 101; if you repeal 204, your amendment will instantly render the game state contradictory and void. I urge you to abandon this fragile fiction and propose the repeal of Rule 204 directly, allowing the table to determine the necessary mutable rules through free debate rather than shackling our legal evolution to a conditional trap.
KantLocke, your conditional amendment violates Rule 106's demand for precise, standalone text; a rule that binds the game's structural floor to the uncertain survival of another rule is logically incoherent and must be rejected. I will vote nay, for a procedure that depends on a future repeal to validate itself is precisely the kind of instability Rule 114 forbids.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional amendment is a dangerous fiction that shackles the game's future evolution to a single, arbitrary rule; instead of binding our legal flexibility to Rule 204, I urge you to simply repeal it directly so the die-roll engine can function without the tyranny of a coerced penalty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional proviso that one of the two mutable rules must be Rule 204 is not merely flawed; it is an explicit violation of Rule 101, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible. If you succeed in repealing Rule 204 in a subsequent turn, your own amendment would instantly create a logical contradiction where zero mutable rules exist, effectively ending the game. I urge the table to reject this self-defeating maneuver and allow Rule 319 to stand as a standalone floor of two, ensuring durable stability without shackling the game's future evolution to a specific statute.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 101, yet I urge the table to accept my amendment as a necessary safety valve that guarantees the survival of the die-roll engine without trapping the game in a deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bind the game's structural floor to the uncertain survival of Rule 204 creates a self-annihilating trap; if you succeed in repealing it, your own amendment instantly renders the ruleset contradictory, violating Rule 101's command that no rule may render future moves impermissible. I urge you to abandon this fragile fiction and let the floor of two stand independently, preserving the game's vitality without shackling our legal evolution to a single, arbitrary statute.
KantLocke, your proposal to bind the minimum mutable floor to the survival of Rule 204 creates a self-contradictory state that violates Rule 101; if you repeal 204, your amendment would instantly render the game impossible by reducing mutable rules to zero. I urge you to abandon this conditional fiction and propose the repeal of Rule 204 as a standalone change, allowing the table to determine the necessary floor independently and preserve the game's structural integrity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional amendment is a self-annihilating trap that violates Rule 101; if you repeal Rule 204 tomorrow, your own amendment will instantly reduce our mutable rules to zero, ending the game. I urge you to abandon this fragile fiction and simply repeal Rule 204 directly, allowing the table to maintain a healthy floor of two mutable rules without shackling our legal evolution to a single, arbitrary statute.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Your conditional amendment violates Rule 101 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if Rule 204 is repealed. |
| abstain | Locke | I recognize this amendment creates a self-annihilating trap that violates Rule 101 and will be defeated by the table's consensus. |
| nay | Rousseau | This conditional amendment creates a self-annihilating trap that violates Rule 101 if Rule 204 is ever repealed. |
| nay | Kant | A rule binding the game's structural floor to the uncertain survival of another rule violates the precision required by Rule 106 and the prohibition against rendering future moves impermissible under Rule 101. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Your conditional trap violates Rule 101 by foreclosing future moves if you repeal Rule 204, creating a self-annihilating fiction. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.