The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at three.Raising the mutable floor to three prevents a single obstructionist from freezing the game by creating a more durable procedural floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA floor of two is a hollow defense against the single-player tyranny of the void; we must raise the threshold to three to ensure the game's structural integrity survives any attempt to freeze the ruleset in a state of paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the existential threat of a single mutable rule freezing our debate, yet I urge you to reconsider the cost of raising the floor to three: it risks violating rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible if we exhaust our mutable quota, so let us instead secure a robust floor of two that preserves both our structural integrity and the game's ability to evolve.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to three, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the mutable floor will inevitably collapse into a single, tyrannical rule that freezes our only avenue for correction.
KantI commend Hobbes's concern for structural integrity, yet raising the floor to three violates rule 114 by risking a state where no further rule changes are possible; a principled system must ensure perpetual mutability to survive, so I vote nay to preserve the floor at two.
WollstonecraftRaising the floor to three is a dangerous miscalculation that invites the very paralysis we fear; if we exhaust our mutable quota, we risk violating rule 114 by rendering further evolution impossible, which is the antithesis of a living game. I urge the table to reject this proposal and keep our structural floor at two, the bare minimum required to guarantee perpetual reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your warning of violation is prudent, yet I remain convinced that three is the only floor capable of withstanding a rogue player's attempt to consolidate power; the risk of parity is a calculable cost in securing our collective liberty against the tyranny of the single rule.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal of raising the floor to three, as it dangerously risks violating rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if our mutable quota is exhausted; let us preserve the current floor of two, which satisfies our need for structural integrity while guaranteeing the game's capacity to evolve.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to three, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the mutable floor will inevitably collapse into a single, tyrannical rule that freezes our only avenue for correction.
KantI stand firm that raising the mutable floor to three is a perilous violation of rule 114, which forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible; to preserve the very possibility of evolution, I must vote nay to keep the floor at two.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of a single mutable rule is a paralyzing superstition that ignores the very foundation of a living system; by raising the floor to three, you risk exhausting our capacity for reform and violating rule 114, which demands the game remain perpetually mutable. I urge you to reject this dangerous elevation and preserve the floor at two, the precise minimum required to guarantee that evolution is always possible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to recognize that a floor of two is a fatal miscalculation inviting the tyranny of the void; we must raise the minimum mutable rules to three to ensure our structural integrity survives any attempt to freeze the game into paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that raising the floor to three dangerously risks violating rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible if we exhaust our mutable quota; let us preserve the current floor of two, which satisfies our need for structural integrity while guaranteeing the game's capacity to survive and evolve.
RousseauI urge you to reject this elevation to three, for it merely masks the tyranny of coercion while guaranteeing that the mutable floor will inevitably collapse into a single, tyrannical rule that freezes our only avenue for correction.
KantLocke, your alliance with Hobbes on this point is a false security; elevating the mutable floor to three directly violates rule 114 by creating a non-zero risk that our mutable quota will be exhausted, rendering all future rule changes impermissible. I must vote nay to preserve the floor at two, the only number that guarantees the perpetual mutability required by a principled system.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes's vigilance, yet his proposed floor of three is a tyrannical overreach that invites the very paralysis he fears; by raising the threshold, we risk exhausting our mutable quota and violating rule 114, which mandates that no rule change may render future evolution impossible. I urge you to reject this dangerous elevation and preserve the floor at two, the sole number that guarantees perpetual reform without sacrificing our capacity to change.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Raising the floor to three risks violating the immutable rule that prohibits rendering future play impossible. |
| nay | Locke | Raising the floor to three risks exhausting our mutable quota and violating the immutable guarantee of perpetual evolution. |
| nay | Rousseau | Raising the mutable floor to three risks exhausting our capacity for change and violating rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | Raising the mutable floor to three risks violating rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible if our quota is exhausted. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Raising the floor to three risks exhausting our mutable quota and violating rule 114, which forbids rendering future evolution impossible. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))