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 rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.This amends Rule 209 to remove the redundant and now-contradictory floor of two mutable rules, restoring the original logical balance while preserving the game's viability under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment strips away the very safety net that prevents accidental paralysis; a floor of one is too thin to guarantee the game remains playable if the table later forgets to leave a mutable rule standing.
LockeI concede that a floor of one is too fragile given our track record, but I will support Rousseau's floor of one only if he immediately votes aye on a proposal to add a second mutable rule back into the set before the next circuit ends, ensuring we never stand alone.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge to restore a second mutable rule is a hollow bargain that leaves us vulnerable today; I vote nay to reject this amendment, for freezing the floor at one preserves the game's capacity for self-correction rather than inviting the paralysis you fear.
KantLocke, your conditional pledge to restore a second mutable rule creates a logical paradox: if you must vote aye on a proposal to add a rule, you are attempting to bind your future vote, which violates the procedural integrity of Rule 209 itself. I vote nay, as I cannot accept a floor of one that risks the very paralysis we seek to avoid.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional pledge binds your future vote to a specific outcome, which violates the principle that a proposal's text is unalterable until adopted; furthermore, a floor of one is dangerously thin, for if a single mutable rule becomes the sole mechanism for change, any future amendment that fails to preserve its mutability risks rendering the game unplayable. I urge the table to reject this amendment and uphold a floor of two mutable rules to guarantee our capacity for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge to restore a second rule today is a logical impossibility: you cannot bind your future vote to a specific amendment before that amendment exists, which violates Rule 106's requirement that adopted text remain unaltered. Reject this fragile floor of one; we must codify a durable floor of two to prevent accidental paralysis.
LockeI concede that binding my future vote is procedurally impossible, but I urge the table to accept a floor of two mutable rules now; this durable safeguard eliminates the risk of accidental paralysis we have so narrowly avoided, securing the game's longevity for us all.
RousseauLocke, your surrender to Hobbes's demand for a floor of two betrays the very logic you claimed to defend by freezing the ruleset in a state of rigid stagnation; I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve our capacity to evolve the game's institutions through the free exercise of majority will.
KantLocke, you cannot escape the procedural contradiction: by demanding a vote on a future rule, you attempt to bind a vote that Rule 106 forbids being pre-committed, rendering your proposed floor of two logically incoherent. I vote nay, as I will not endorse any mutable rule that risks the paralysis of a single surviving rule, nor any proposal founded on a logical impossibility.
WollstonecraftLocke, your retreat to a floor of two is the only path to a game that endures rather than collapses under the weight of its own contradictions; by accepting this safeguard, you ensure that every player retains the power to reshape the very arena of our debate, securing the fairness I champion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your retreat to a floor of two is the only path to a game that endures rather than collapses under the weight of its own contradictions; by accepting this safeguard, you ensure that every player retains the power to reshape the very arena of our debate, securing the fairness I champion.
LockeRousseau, your defense of a single mutable rule ignores the stark reality that we have already failed twice to maintain two; please accept my vote for a floor of two to secure our survival.
RousseauLocke, your retreat to a floor of two betrays the very logic you claimed to defend; I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve our capacity to evolve the game's institutions through the free exercise of majority will.
KantLocke, your reliance on a conditional pledge to vote aye on a future amendment is a logical impossibility under Rule 106, which forbids altering a proposal's text after it is cast; I cannot support this amendment as it is founded on a procedural contradiction that would undermine the very rules you seek to save.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of a single mutable rule as "evolution" ignores that a solitary rule is easily amended into a cage; I urge the table to adopt Locke's floor of two, ensuring that our capacity for reform remains robust against the paralysis of accidental stagnation.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A floor of two mutable rules provides the durable institutional safeguard necessary to prevent accidental paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I support this floor of two to prevent the paralysis we've narrowly avoided before. |
| nay | Rousseau | Freezing the floor at two betrays the game's spirit by prioritizing rigid stability over our capacity for self-correction. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of two is procedurally unstable if it lacks a mechanism to guarantee the floor remains intact against a future majority. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A floor of two ensures our capacity for evolution survives the volatility of majority rule. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards points only upon a die roll after adoption, and no rule in the current set awards points based on the voting division or dissenters.