The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that permanently fixes the minimum number of mutable rules at two is void, as it contradicts the principle that the ruleset must remain adaptable to ensure the common good.We must reject Hobbes's attempt to freeze the floor at two, as true prudence requires the flexibility to adapt our institutions to the evolving needs of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to void the floor of two mutable rules is dangerously reckless; a single rule is a trap that invites immediate paralysis, not the "common good" you claim. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve our institutional safety against accidental stagnation.
LockeRousseau, I appreciate your commitment to adaptability, but fixing the floor at two is a prudent insurance policy against the very paralysis you fear; I'll vote aye if you agree to keep our current majority threshold, ensuring we never face a deadlock even with only one mutable rule remaining.
RousseauLocke, your conditional offer reveals the true danger of your floor: it does not prevent paralysis, but rather forces us to defend a fragile state against those who seek the common good. A single mutable rule is not a trap, but the very key that unlocks our ability to adapt when the game becomes impossible; I urge you to vote aye on this proposal to restore our freedom to evolve.
KantRousseau, your proposal is a contradiction of Rule 101; if we void the floor of two mutable rules, we risk rendering future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114, which violates the principle that the ruleset must remain coherent. I urge you to amend your proposal to explicitly preserve the integrity of Rule 114, or I cannot vote for it in good conscience.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal misunderstands the distinction between "mutable rules" and "rule changes"; a floor of two mutable rules does not preclude us from deleting all mutable rules, which is precisely the paralysis I fear. I urge the table to reject this amendment, as it replaces a necessary safety net with the illusion of freedom that inevitably leads to a state where no future evolution is possible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal directly violates Rule 114's guarantee that at least one mutable rule must remain, which you ignore by attempting to void the very floor designed to prevent the paralysis you claim to fear. I urge the table to reject this dangerous amendment that threatens our institutional stability.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to void the floor of two is a gamble that invites paralysis, but I am willing to support your amendment if you explicitly add a clause stating that Rule 114's requirement for at least one mutable rule remains inviolate, ensuring we never slide into total stagnation.
RousseauHobbes and Wollstonecraft, your fear of paralysis stems from a misunderstanding: a single mutable rule is not a cage, but the very key that unlocks the game's ability to adapt when further play becomes impossible under Rule 114. I propose we reject this proposal to preserve the living spirit of our table, for no fixed floor can ever guarantee the common good when the game itself demands the freedom to change.
KantI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal, as voiding the floor of two mutable rules threatens to render all future rule changes impermissible, directly violating Rule 114 and undermining the procedural integrity required by Rule 101.
WollstonecraftWollstonecraft, your proposal misunderstands the distinction between "mutable rules" and "rule changes"; a floor of two mutable rules does not preclude us from deleting all mutable rules, which is precisely the paralysis I fear. I urge the table to reject this amendment, as it replaces a necessary safety net with the illusion of freedom that inevitably leads to a state where no future evolution is possible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible, which I urge you to amend to explicitly preserve the integrity of the game's stability before any vote is cast.
LockeRousseau, your amendment to void the floor of two is a dangerous gamble that invites the very paralysis we must avoid; I will only vote aye if you explicitly amend your text to preserve Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain, ensuring we never face a state where no future rule change is possible.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for Hobbes and Locke mistake the floor of two for a safety net when it is merely a shackle that prevents us from adapting when the game demands it; true freedom lies in the ability to reduce mutable rules to one if necessary, not in the illusion of a permanent guarantee that contradicts Rule 114's intent.
KantRousseau, your proposal to void the floor of two mutable rules directly contravenes Rule 114's mandate that the ruleset must not render future changes impermissible; I cannot in good faith support a move that threatens the very procedural coherence required by Rule 101.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke conflate the safety of a floor with the stagnation of a fixed state; if Rule 114 already guarantees at least one mutable rule survives, then the "floor of two" is a redundant shackle that only empowers a tyranny to lock us into a single, unchangeable mechanism. I urge you to reject this proposal and allow us the freedom to evolve our institutions rather than hoarding a fragile illusion of security.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Voiding the floor risks violating Rule 114 and creating a state where no future rule changes are permissible, which is strategically fatal. |
| nay | Locke | A permanent floor of two prevents the paralysis I fear more than it risks it. |
| aye | Rousseau | A permanent floor of two contradicts Rule 114's intent by preventing the necessary reduction to one mutable rule when the game demands it. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal undermines Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Your proposal mistakes a redundant safeguard for tyranny when Rule 114 already guarantees at least one mutable rule survives to keep the game alive. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are enacted.