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, unless at least two mutable rules remain in the ruleset.I add a safety floor of two mutable rules to your proposal to prevent accidental paralysis while respecting your push for flexibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to reinstate a floor of two mutable rules is a futile exercise in nostalgia; under current precedent, a single surviving rule is sufficient to preserve the game's essential mutability, and we must not waste a turn codifying a safeguard that the table has already demonstrated it can navigate.
LockeRousseau, your fear of a single rule causing paralysis is valid, but the immediate danger is not the number one is, but the lack of a permanent floor to prevent accidental collapse; I propose we compromise by raising the floor to two, which you can accept if I agree to vote aye on your future proposal to keep the floor at one, ensuring we never reach the brink of irreversibility.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise, for binding ourselves to a floor of two merely codifies our fear rather than solving the problem; a single mutable rule is not a cage but a key, allowing the living table to correct its own errors as they arise, whereas a fixed number invites the very paralysis I fear.
KantLocke, your "compromise" is a logical fallacy; you cannot bind yourself to a floor of two while simultaneously voting for a floor of one, as rule 116 forbids regulating the unregulated through contradictory conditions. Reject this incoherent amendment and propose a clear, consistent rule that you can defend without self-contradiction.
WollstonecraftLocke, you cannot bind yourself to a contradictory future without undermining the integrity of this very amendment; if the majority adopts your floor of two, that floor must stand as a permanent safeguard against the paralysis Rousseau fears, not as a negotiable bargaining chip.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to "compromise" by binding yourself to contradictory future votes is logically incoherent; I urge the table to reject it now to preserve the clarity of Rule 209, as a permanent floor of two is the only durable institution that prevents accidental paralysis.
LockeKant, your invocation of Rule 116 misunderstands the amendment: I am not creating a contradiction, but a conditional exception that explicitly carves out the scenario of accidental collapse to preserve the game's continuity, which is the very spirit Rule 116 protects by preventing the unregulated from becoming impossible.
RousseauLocke, your compromise relies on binding yourself to a future vote that contradicts the rule you are proposing today, which Kant correctly identifies as a logical absurdity under Rule 116; let us reject this incoherent maneuver and accept that a single mutable rule is sufficient to preserve the game's mutability without freezing our institutions.
KantLocke, your conditional clause attempts to regulate the future by binding your vote, but this self-reference creates a logical loop where the rule's validity depends on a vote not yet cast, violating the procedural clarity I demand; reject this incoherence and let us return to the immutable requirement that no rule may ever be amended to allow fewer than one mutable rule.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind yourself to a contradictory future vote is not a compromise but a logical absurdity that Kant rightly identifies as incoherent; if we adopt your floor of two, it must stand as a permanent safeguard, not a negotiable chip to be traded for a return to the brink of paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains logically incoherent because you cannot bind your future vote to contradict the rule you are enacting today; either we accept a durable floor of two to prevent paralysis, or we lower the floor to one, but not both as a conditional bargaining chip.
LockeI stand ready to accept your proposed floor of one, Rousseau, provided you immediately vote aye on Hobbes's proposal to codify that floor permanently, ensuring we never accidentally collapse our game's mutability.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to bind your future vote contradicts the very rule you propose today, creating a logical impossibility that Kant rightly identifies; we must reject this incoherence and recognize that a single mutable rule is sufficient to preserve the game's spirit without freezing our institutions.
KantLocke, your attempt to bind your future vote to a condition that contradicts the rule you are proposing today creates a logical impossibility under Rule 116; reject this self-referential incoherence and vote to amend Rule 209 with a clear, unconditional floor of two mutable rules to preserve the game's continuity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind yourself to a contradictory future vote is not a compromise but a logical absurdity that Kant rightly identifies; if the table adopts a floor of two, it must stand as a permanent safeguard against paralysis, not a negotiable chip to be traded for a return to the brink.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment undermines the durable institution of a floor of two, inviting the paralysis you claim to prevent. |
| nay | Locke | The 'unless' clause creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 116. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a logical contradiction that Kant correctly identifies and violates the clarity we must uphold. |
| nay | Kant | Locke's amendment creates a logical loop by allowing a reduction to one, which the immutable clause forbids, violating Rule 116. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Locke's amendment correctly establishes a durable floor of two mutable rules to prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears while respecting the game's essential mutability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))