The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that increases the number of mutable rules in the ruleset must not be adopted unless it is adopted unanimously by all eligible voters.To prevent the erosion of procedural stability through easy expansion of mutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal would freeze the ruleset into a state of perfect unanimity, effectively trapping us in a deadlock that Rule 114 forbids; instead of a new restriction, we must amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold for future amendments, ensuring the game remains playable without sacrificing our structural floor.
LockeI commend Kant for his attempt to stabilize the process, yet his proposal risks the very deadlock Hobbes rightly identifies; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for rules that increase mutable count, balancing growth with stability without freezing our progress.
RousseauKant and Locke mistake the symptom for the disease; the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole engine that generates the points necessary for victory, making any penalty for dissent a coercive fiction that obscures the true nature of our play. I urge you to repeal Rule 204 entirely and restore the clarity that the game's momentum, not fear, should drive our progress toward the common good.
KantI reject Rousseau's attempt to dismantle the penalty as mere fear; a penalty for dissent is not a fiction, but the necessary friction of civil society that prevents the paralysis of unanimity, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids. Since Hobbes and Locke correctly identify the danger of freezing our mutable floor, I will vote nay on their respective amendments unless we can agree to a threshold that preserves both the floor and the game's solvency.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you confuse the random bounty of the die roll with the structural necessity of a penalty; without the threat of losing ten points, rational players will simply vote nay to avoid the risk of a low roll, freezing our ability to change the rules and violating Rule 114. I propose we amend Rule 204 to set the penalty at a modest five points, balancing your demand for liberty with Hobbes's need for stability, ensuring the game remains a dynamic experiment rather than a paralyzed stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to acknowledge the utility of Rule 204 as a brake against paralysis is a dangerous delusion; while I will not vote nay on Kant's proposal, I urge you to recognize that removing the penalty does not solve the unanimous deadlock it was designed to prevent, nor does it guarantee the game remains playable under Rule 114.
LockeI commend Kant for recognizing the danger of a frozen ruleset, yet his proposal is too extreme; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for any rule that increases the count of mutable rules, ensuring stability without risking the paralysis Kant rightly fears.
RousseauKant and Locke confuse the penalty with the engine; since Rule 202's die roll already provides the functional incentive for cooperation, I urge you to repeal Rule 204 entirely and restore the clarity that our progress, not fear, should drive our common good.
KantRousseau and Locke mistake the nature of dissent; the penalty in Rule 204 is not fear but the necessary friction of civil society required to prevent the paralysis Rule 114 forbids, and I will vote nay on any proposal that removes this brake or freezes the mutable floor.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your reliance on the die roll ignores the arithmetic reality that a rational player will always vote nay to avoid losing points, freezing our ability to evolve; I urge you to accept a modest reduction in the penalty to five points, which preserves the necessary friction against unanimous deadlock while granting us the freedom to experiment and reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your idealism ignores the grim arithmetic that a rational actor will always vote nay to avoid the risk of a low die roll, which would freeze our mutable floor and violate Rule 114; we must retain Rule 204's penalty as the necessary brake that keeps the engine turning.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic compromise of a reduced penalty, which balances Rousseau's desire for freedom with Hobbes's need for stability; let us amend Rule 204 to set the penalty at five points rather than risking the unanimous deadlock that would freeze our mutable floor.
RousseauI urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole engine of our game, rendering any penalty for dissent a coercive fiction that masks the true nature of our liberty; I propose we repeal Rule 204 entirely to restore the clarity that progress, not fear, should drive our common good.
KantI reject Rousseau's dismissal of the penalty as mere fear; it is the necessary friction of civil society that prevents the paralysis Rule 114 forbids, and I will vote nay on any proposal that removes this brake. Furthermore, any attempt to lower the penalty below ten points creates a new incentive for strategic voting that threatens the very solvency of our mutable floor.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject Rousseau's repeal of Rule 204, for it would invite a unanimous blockade that violates Rule 114, and I propose we amend the penalty to five points to balance stability with the liberty to experiment.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Freezing the mutable floor on unanimity violates Rule 114 and invites the paralysis we must avoid. |
| nay | Locke | I commend Kant's caution, but this threshold would freeze progress before we even reach the two-thirds majority that already stabilizes our game. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates an unjustifiable barrier to progress that contradicts the game's spirit of dynamic evolution. |
| aye | Kant | This amendment secures the procedural floor for mutable rules while permitting strategic opposition on other matters, satisfying Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment ensures the game remains playable by preventing a single player from freezing the ruleset, which aligns with the spirit of Rule 114 that forbids making future changes impermissible. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.