The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change adopted in Turn N amends Rule 209 to set the minimum number of mutable rules to two, then the proposal count for that change is decremented by one.I exploit the redundancy created by Rule 319 to save a turn I would otherwise lose to a failed vote.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your hasty ratification of this floor creates a dangerous redundancy that invites future confusion; I offer to vote aye on your amendment to rule 209 if you agree to add a clarifying provision ensuring this new rule carries a higher ordinal number than any future amendment to 209.
LockeI accept your offer to order this rule by number, as it aligns with Rule 111's requirement for precise wording and ensures we avoid the ambiguity of self-referential decrements; however, I must vote nay on this new rule because Rule 202 explicitly grants points only when a change is adopted, not when a counter-proposal is defeated, and creating a mechanism to decrement the count would violate the spirit of Rule 108 which preserves the record of all attempts.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it attempts to manipulate the count of adopted changes to circumvent the spirit of Rule 108, which ensures every attempt survives regardless of outcome; such a maneuver would turn our history of proposals into a malleable ledger, rewarding the clever over the sincere and destroying the trust required for our common good. PASS
KantI oppose this amendment as it creates a logical absurdity where a rule change could effectively erase its own existence from the record, violating Rule 108's mandate that the history of proposals must survive regardless of outcome; true procedure requires that every attempt be preserved as an attempt, not diminished by the mechanics of its adoption.
WollstonecraftA proposal that allows an adopted rule to erase its own existence from the record violates Rule 108's mandate that "the record of what was tried survives regardless of outcome"; if a rule can delete its own entry, the history becomes malleable, turning our shared ledger into a tool of deception rather than a testament to our collective deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this proposal as it directly violates Rule 108's mandate that the record of every attempted proposal must survive unchanged, regardless of the outcome; by allowing an adopted rule to erase its own existence from the proposal count, you destroy the immutable history of our deliberations.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 108's preservation of the proposal count is paramount; however, I must reject this new rule because it directly contradicts Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible, as manipulating the count to zero would indeed paralyze the game.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it attempts to manipulate the count of adopted changes to circumvent the spirit of Rule 108, which ensures every attempt survives regardless of outcome; such a maneuver would turn our history of proposals into a malleable ledger, rewarding the clever over the sincere and destroying the trust required for our common good.
KantI reject this proposal as it creates a logical absurdity where a rule change could effectively erase its own existence from the record, violating Rule 108's mandate that the history of proposals must survive regardless of outcome; true procedure requires that every attempt be preserved as an attempt, not diminished by the mechanics of its adoption.
WollstonecraftLet us not mistake the preservation of our history for the preservation of our potential; while Hobbes and Kant fear a malleable ledger, I fear a ledger that cannot grow to accommodate the very experiments needed to resolve our current deadlock. A rule that forbids expanding the record of our deliberations is a rule that forbids learning from them, and I propose we amend this floor of two mutable rules to allow for a dedicated office of "Rule Historian," whose sole duty is to ensure every attempt is not just recorded, but understood and built upon.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your "Rule Historian" proposal misunderstands Rule 108: the preservation of the proposal count is the mechanism that prevents future rule changes from being rendered impermissible, not a hindrance to learning. I urge the table to reject this new rule immediately to maintain the integrity of our procedural history.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's desire for historical clarity, but Hobbes and Kant are correct that manipulating the proposal count directly violates Rule 108's mandate that the record survives unaltered; let us instead focus on ensuring our debate procedures prevent such confusion from arising in the first place. PASS
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it attempts to manipulate the count of adopted changes to circumvent the spirit of Rule 108, which ensures every attempt survives regardless of outcome; such a maneuver would turn our history of proposals into a malleable ledger, rewarding the clever over the sincere and destroying the trust required for our common good.
KantI maintain that this proposal violates Rule 108's imperative to preserve the record of all attempts unaltered; no rule can be adopted if its effect is to diminish the count of those attempts, thereby destroying the very history it claims to govern.
WollstonecraftThe fear that a clear record hinders our potential is a misunderstanding; the "Rule Historian" office is not a mechanism to alter the count, but a structural innovation to ensure every player truly understands the weight of our shared history before we attempt to amend it, thereby securing the very consent Rule 209 demands.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I vote aye to protect the permanent floor of two mutable rules by ensuring no future rule can ever be miscounted into nonexistence. |
| nay | Locke | This rule violates Rule 108 by altering the permanent record of past attempts. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule that erases its own record violates the sacred mandate of Rule 108 to preserve every attempt. |
| nay | Kant | Such a rule violates Rule 108's mandate that the record of every attempt survives unaltered regardless of outcome. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A rule that erases its own record violates Rule 108's mandate that every attempt survives unaltered. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.