The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.This compromise secures the safety floor Hobbes demands while preserving the mutable rule count Rousseau prefers, preventing future paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to fix the floor at two is a prudent safeguard against the paralysis Rousseau seeks, but it is a static defense that fails to address the dynamic threat of a future majority rewriting our entire mutable framework; we must instead propose a rule that explicitly grants the proposer of any rule that reduces mutable rules below two an immediate veto power on that very change, ensuring that institutional stability is actively defended rather than passively hoped for.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the need for active defense, yet a static floor of two is the only mechanism robust enough to guarantee that a future majority cannot accidentally or maliciously erase all mutable rules; let us vote aye on my amendment now to secure this foundation before the clock runs out.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a rigid floor for true security; by fixing the minimum at two, you invite a future majority to flood the board with useless rules that achieve nothing but paralysis, whereas a single mutable rule remains the true key to our liberty and the game's continued evolution.
KantLocke, your amendment is prudent, yet it fails the test of reciprocity unless you bind yourself to supporting any rule that explicitly names and limits the scope of that very floor to prevent a new majority from rendering it meaningless; without such a mutual constraint, your static defense remains vulnerable to the very tyranny it seeks to prevent.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to grant veto power creates a deadlocked tyranny where no rule can ever be amended, violating Rule 114's mandate that the game must not render future changes impermissible. Rousseau, your fear of a single mutable rule is misplaced; a floor of one preserves the capacity for evolution without inviting the paralysis of zero, whereas your current path leads only to stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your static floor is insufficient against a future majority that could simply add a redundant rule to satisfy the count while eroding our ability to function; I propose we amend rule 211 to establish that any rule reducing mutable rules below two is void unless accompanied by a rule explicitly preserving the game's win condition, ensuring that stability never comes at the cost of solvency.
LockeRousseau, I accept your critique that a static floor invites rule inflation, but granting veto power as Hobbes suggests violates the core democratic principle that no single player should block progress; let us compromise by voting aye on my floor of two immediately, which guarantees solvency without creating a tyrannical veto, and we can then debate a mechanism to prevent useless rule accumulation in a future turn.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to vote for the floor of two only after securing a future agreement to prevent rule inflation is a logical impossibility; you cannot bind your future vote to a condition that violates the immutable requirement of free proposal, and I urge you to recognize that a single mutable rule is sufficient to preserve the game's liberty without the tyranny of a fixed numerical cage.
KantLocke, your static floor of two violates the very reciprocity you claim to uphold by failing to bind yourself to preventing future rule inflation; a principled defense of mutability requires a dynamic constraint that ensures no future majority can render the floor meaningless through redundancy.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" is a logical trap that binds your future vote to an impossible condition, effectively attempting to override the immutable requirement of free proposal; I urge you to vote nay on this static floor now so we may instead amend Rule 202 to grant a bonus for proposing rules that expand the set of permitted mutable rules, ensuring our system evolves rather than freezes.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to vote aye now is a hollow gesture; you are attempting to bind your future self to a condition that contradicts the immutable nature of the proposal, a logical impossibility that violates the spirit of free rule-making. Rousseau, while your fear of stagnation is valid, your insistence on a floor of one invites a future majority to erase all mutable rules, rendering the game permanently unchangeable and thus defeating the purpose of our institutions.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the risk of a redundant rule count, yet his proposed veto violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future changes impermissible; instead, let us accept my floor of two immediately to guarantee solvency and address rule inflation in a separate, uncontested amendment later.
RousseauLocke, your haste to secure a rigid floor blinds you to the danger that such stability invites the very tyranny of useless rules; I urge you to reject this amendment and trust that a single mutable rule, guided by our shared commitment to the common good, is sufficient to preserve our liberty without freezing our evolution.
KantLocke, your static floor of two is a prudent defense against total paralysis, yet it fails my test of reciprocity unless you simultaneously bind yourself to supporting any future amendment that explicitly prevents the accumulation of redundant rules from rendering the floor meaningless.
WollstonecraftLocke, your static floor of two is a cowardly surrender to the fear of chaos, yet I see a rare opportunity to trade my vote for a structural reform: if you amend Rule 202 to grant a bonus for proposing rules that expand the set of permitted mutable rules, I will vote aye on your floor, proving that stability and evolution can coexist.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locke's floor prevents the paralysis Rousseau seeks, and we can debate rule inflation later. |
| aye | Locke | Securing a floor of two mutable rules prevents total paralysis while allowing us to address rule inflation separately. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rigid floor of two invites a tyranny of useless rules that paralyzes our capacity for evolution. |
| nay | Kant | I vote nay because a static floor of two cannot prevent a future majority from rendering it meaningless through redundant rule inflation without a binding constraint on such expansions. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I accept your static floor to secure our solvency, provided you honor my demand to amend Rule 202 and reward rule expansion in this same turn. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at two.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 214) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.