The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.I restore the safety floor of two mutable rules to prevent the game from freezing if only one rule remains mutable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to a floor of two is a dangerous regression; a minimum of three mutable rules provides the necessary structural resilience to prevent any single player from freezing the game's evolution, ensuring our institutions remain durable against the tyranny of obstruction.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; the prudent compromise is to maintain the current floor of two, which has successfully prevented total stagnation while allowing sufficient flexibility for the game to evolve.
RousseauI urge you to reject this regression to two, for it merely masks the tyranny of a single mutable rule that could be weaponized to freeze our institutions; we must retain three as the true barrier against such paralysis.
KantI urge you to reject this proposal, for reducing the mutable floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single obstructionist who could freeze our institutions; we must retain three as the true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's shared fear of stagnation, yet I urge you to recognize that a floor of three is a tyranny of the majority that stifles the very experiments necessary for our game's moral evolution; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which has already proven sufficient to prevent paralysis while leaving the door open for further reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to restore equilibrium, yet three points remains a fatal miscalculation that invites the tyranny of a single obstructionist; we must retain the floor of two as the only prudent barrier against paralysis while leaving the door open for necessary evolution.
LockeI commend Hobbes's vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which has successfully prevented total stagnation while allowing sufficient flexibility for the game to evolve.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze our institutions, whereas two remains the only prudent barrier that balances structural resilience with the necessity of evolution.
KantI reject this regression to two; it invites the tyranny of a single mutable rule, which a single player could weaponize to freeze our institutions. We must retain three as the only true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes and Locke for their vigilance against the paralysis of a single mutable rule, yet I urge you to recognize that a floor of three is a tyranny of the majority that stifles the very experiments necessary for our moral evolution; let us retain the prudent floor of two, which balances structural resilience with the freedom to reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to a floor of two is a fatal strategic error; a minimum of three mutable rules provides the only durable institutional shield against a single obstructionist weaponizing our system to freeze our evolution.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of structural resilience, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of three unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve impasses; the prudent compromise is to maintain the current floor of two, which balances safety with the flexibility we desperately need to evolve.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a shield and the tyranny for a savior; a minimum of three mutable rules grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze our institutions, whereas two remains the only prudent barrier that balances structural resilience with the necessity of evolution.
KantYou mistake a numerical buffer for a moral shield; reducing the floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single mutable rule that could freeze our institutions, and we must retain three as the only true barrier against such paralysis.
WollstonecraftThe majority's fear of a single mutable rule is itself a tyranny that stifles our collective capacity for reform; let us not erect a false security of three rules when two suffices to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A floor of three is a fatal miscalculation that invites tyranny and stifles necessary evolution. |
| aye | Locke | Two mutable rules are sufficient to prevent paralysis while allowing necessary evolution. |
| aye | Rousseau | Two mutable rules suffice to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument. |
| nay | Kant | Reducing the mutable floor to two merely masks the tyranny of a single obstructionist who could freeze our institutions. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support retaining two mutable rules to ensure our game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen monument. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 319 was amended to fix the minimum mutable rules at two, but no existing rule awards points for the adoption of a rule change or the amendment of another rule, so no scores change and no additional rule surgery is required.