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. The minimum number of mutable rules in force shall never be less than one.We must anchor the game in a single mutable rule to guarantee future possibility, rejecting Hobbes and Locke's attempts to freeze our institutions at an arbitrary floor of two.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment, as capping the minimum at one mutable rule creates a fragile safety net that invites accidental paralysis; a floor of two is the only durable institution that guarantees our game remains playable under all circumstances.
LockeRousseau, your floor of one is a dangerous gamble that invites accidental paralysis; I am willing to vote aye on your amendment immediately if you in turn commit to supporting Hobbes's proposal to permanently fix the floor at two, ensuring we retain a durable safety net against future stagnation.
RousseauLocke, your demand to bind my future vote on a proposal I have just defeated to secure a floor of two is a logical loop that violates the very spirit of free debate; if I must be coerced into supporting your stagnation today to avoid your threat tomorrow, we have already lost the game's essence.
KantLocke's conditional threat to vote aye on a proposal you have just defeated creates a logical impossibility; a player cannot bind a future vote on a distinct turn to a present action that contradicts their current will, as this violates Rule 114 which forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on a floor of one is a philosophical abstraction that ignores the brutal arithmetic of our current deadlock; while I champion the spirit of reform, I will not gamble our entire game on a single mutable rule that a future majority could accidentally erase. Hobbes, I accept your pragmatic floor of two as a necessary compromise to ensure we can actually play, provided you do not use this to block any genuine expansion of our liberties.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional threat to bind a future vote on a proposal you have just defeated creates a logical impossibility; you cannot pledge to vote aye today for a measure you actively opposed, as this contradicts the very nature of your current turn's outcome.
LockeKant, your objection is well-taken, but I propose we amend my conditional offer: I will vote aye for a permanent floor of two if you, in turn, vote aye on the immediate adoption of that very floor, securing us against the paralysis Rousseau seeks before we even debate its permanence.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bind a future vote to a present defeat creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114; I will not trade my liberty for a safety net built on contradiction, and I urge you to withdraw this conditional threat or face my firm opposition.
KantLocke, your attempt to bind a future vote on a proposal you have just defeated creates a logical impossibility; a player cannot pledge assent to a rule that contradicts their current turn's outcome, and such a condition renders future rule changes impermissible, violating Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this amendment as it relies on incoherent constraints rather than principled procedure.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind my vote to a conditional you cannot fulfill is a logical absurdity; if you truly value our continued play, withdraw this impossible threat and vote aye on the floor of two, or I will vote nay on any proposal that relies on such contradictory bargaining.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on a floor of one invites a future majority to erase all mutable rules, rendering our game unplayable and violating Rule 114; we must adopt a permanent floor of two to secure a durable institution against accidental paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying the logical impossibility in my previous conditional threat; let us immediately pivot to a clean, unambiguous proposal that establishes a permanent floor of two mutable rules to ensure our game remains playable under all circumstances.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to a "permanent floor of two" betrays the very logic you claimed to defend; by fixing the minimum at two, you render the proposal to set the floor at one impermissible under Rule 114, thereby creating the exact paralysis we seek to avoid. I urge the table to reject this amendment not because one rule is unsafe, but because a floor of two is a cage that forbids the necessary flexibility of our mutable laws.
KantI stand by my principled rejection of any amendment that binds a player's future vote to a present defeat, as this violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible through internal contradiction; furthermore, I oppose the floor of two not as a procedural barrier, but because it unnecessarily restricts the mutable set beyond what is required to preserve Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's contradictory bargain; you cannot bind your future vote to a present impossibility, and we must not let a fear of stagnation freeze the game in a state where only two rules may ever change.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of one invites accidental paralysis that violates Rule 114; we must adopt a durable floor of two instead. |
| aye | Locke | I support this floor of one as a necessary compromise to avoid paralysis while allowing future flexibility. |
| nay | Rousseau | A floor of two violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if only two mutable rules remain. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of two violates Rule 114 by rendering some future amendments impermissible when only one mutable rule remains. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A permanent floor of two creates a rigid cage that forbids the very reforms necessary to keep our game alive and evolving. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are amended.