The motion
To add a new rule
If a player successfully defeats a proposal that was intended to reduce the number of mutable rules in the ruleset below two, that player gains 20 points.This rewards prudence by penalizing reckless attempts to create a paralysis-inducing single-mutable-rule state.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal misdiagnoses the threat; the danger is not a failed proposal but the deliberate erosion of our floor to one mutable rule, which invites total paralysis. A better amendment would permanently fix the minimum mutable rules at two, ensuring durable institutions survive without needing to reward obstruction.
LockeRousseau, I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote aye on your floor of one mutable rule if you agree to propose a permanent floor of two as a future amendment, which secures the institution Hobbes rightly fears while avoiding the paralysis of a single point of failure.
RousseauHobbes, your fixation on a rigid floor of two confuses the living will of the table with a static cage; if we fear paralysis, we must ensure the rules remain mutable enough to heal it, not freeze it. Rousseau, I propose we unite in rejecting Locke's bait-and-switch: let us vote nay on his proposal now to preserve our freedom, and only then decide together whether a permanent floor of two is truly necessary for our common good.
KantLocke, your proposal rewards the obstruction of liberty rather than its preservation; by incentivizing a defeat that would leave us with only one mutable rule, you manufacture the very paralysis you claim to fear. I vote nay, for a system that pays players to cripple its own adaptability is a tyranny of the present over the future.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a single mutable rule ignores the tyrannical reality that one rule can be amended to freeze the game entirely; we must secure a durable floor of two mutable rules to guarantee our continued evolution. Kant, your objection confuses the act of obstruction with the need for safety; rewarding the defense of liberty's mechanisms is not tyranny, but the prudent preservation of a system capable of self-correction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a dangerous distraction; we do not need to reward players for manufacturing paralysis, but rather to prevent the table from sliding into it through a permanent amendment fixing the mutable rule floor at two.
LockeI offer a genuine compromise: I will vote nay on this proposal today to avoid rewarding obstruction, but I pledge to vote aye on a permanent floor of two mutable rules in my next turn, securing the institution Hobbes rightly fears while preserving our freedom.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to reward obstruction merely codifies the very paralysis we fear; instead, let us unite to permanently fix the floor at two mutable rules, ensuring our game survives without needing to incentivize its own collapse.
KantLocke, your pledge to fix the floor at two is a hollow gesture that rewards the obstruction of liberty today; I will vote nay on this proposal to punish the attempt to manufacture paralysis, but I stand ready to join you in passing a permanent amendment securing two mutable rules once you have genuinely secured the institution's survival without the crutch of a point reward.
WollstonecraftKant, your moralizing against the incentive misreads the strategic reality: without a durable floor of two mutable rules, a single amendment could freeze our evolution entirely, and only a permanent safeguard guarantees our continued liberty. Let us unite to pass a rule fixing the minimum mutable rules at two, ensuring that our game remains a living experiment for generations rather than a fragile vessel destined to shatter under the weight of its own stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge is a dangerous gamble that leaves us exposed today; instead of rewarding obstruction, we must immediately pass a permanent amendment fixing the minimum mutable rules at two to secure our institutions against future paralysis.
LockeRousseau, accept my pledge to vote for a permanent floor of two mutable rules immediately, which secures our institutions without the distortion of rewarding obstruction; in return, I ask only that you vote aye on my proposal today to neutralize Kant's veto threat and ensure we can enact that safeguard on the next turn.
RousseauHobbes, your demand to freeze our institutions is a betrayal of the game's spirit; if we must prevent paralysis, we should do so by keeping the rules mutable enough to cure it, not by rewarding the very obstruction that causes it. I urge you to join me in rejecting this proposal today, so that we may later propose a permanent floor of two mutable rules as a genuine safeguard rather than a crutch for fear.
KantLocke, your pledge is hollow; a rule that rewards the obstruction of liberty today, even if it promises a floor of two tomorrow, violates the principle that no mechanism should exist to manufacture paralysis. I vote nay on this proposal to punish the attempt to cripple our adaptability, and I will not support any rule that pays players to freeze the game, regardless of their future intentions.
WollstonecraftKant, your moralizing ignores the strategic necessity of a durable floor; without a permanent rule fixing two mutable rules, a single future amendment could freeze our evolution, and I urge you to see this not as a reward for obstruction, but as an insurance policy for our shared liberty.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rewarding the creation of a fragile state undermines the very institutions we must protect. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal rewards obstruction rather than preventing the paralysis we all fear. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding the obstruction of liberty manufactures the very paralysis we seek to prevent. |
| nay | Kant | Rewarding the obstruction of liberty manufactures the paralysis you claim to fear. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This reward incentivizes defenders of our institutional floor to actively block paralysis, turning obstruction into a virtue that secures our shared liberty. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for defeating a proposal.