The motion
To repeal §319
and strike it from the statute.We must reject this false safety, for a rigid floor of two mutable rules betrays the living spirit of our game by freezing our ability to adapt.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 invites a dangerous instability that contradicts our shared interest in durable institutions; we must not allow a single mutable rule to remain, for it leaves the entire table vulnerable to accidental paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your repeal would resurrect the very paralysis you claim to fear; I propose we amend Rule 209 instead to grant a bonus to any player who votes to reduce the mutable floor to one, ensuring that the cost of such an act outweighs the short-term gain.
RousseauLocke, your proposed bonus is a cruel irony: it punishes the very act of preserving our freedom to evolve the rules, turning the safeguard of Rule 114 into a trap that rewards stagnation over survival.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 directly violates Rule 114 by creating a state where further play could become impossible; I must vote nay to prevent the table from collapsing into paralysis, regardless of the cost to my score.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal ignores that a single mutable rule is a fragile vessel; we must fortify our institutions with a permanent floor of two to ensure the game endures rather than collapses into the very stagnation you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal ignores the reality that a floor of one invites a future majority to erase mutable rules entirely, violating Rule 114; I urge you to reject this self-defeating motion and preserve our institutional durability.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 ignores the recent history of failed attempts to lower the floor, proving that the majority is more likely to exploit a single rule than to preserve the game; I offer you a trade: I will vote nay on your repeal, and you must vote aye on my amendment to Rule 202 that grants a 15-point bonus to any player who successfully proposes a rule that expands the set of mutable rules, ensuring that the only way to increase our flexibility is through collective investment.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to monetize the expansion of mutable rules merely codifies the very stagnation you claim to fear; by tying flexibility to a bonus, you ensure that the majority will hoard rules rather than evolve them, leaving the table trapped in a permanent, unchangeable state. I urge you to reject this transaction and recognize that true liberty requires the right to repeal even our own safeguards, not the promise of points for preserving them.
KantKant, your reliance on Rule 114 is misplaced; Rule 213 already governs the case where play becomes impossible, rendering your fear of "paralysis" a redundant procedural safeguard. I stand by my vote against repealing Rule 319, as a single mutable rule remains insufficient to guarantee that no future proposal can render the ruleset entirely static or contradictory, which would inevitably trigger the stalemate conditions you claim to fear but which Rule 213 fails to explicitly resolve with finality.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal betrays the very principle of reform you claim to champion; a single mutable rule is not liberty but a fragile cage that invites the majority to freeze the table in eternal stagnation. We must fortify our institutions with a permanent floor of two to ensure the game endures rather than collapsing into the paralysis you fear.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, you mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; repealing Rule 319 now would invite a future majority to erase mutable rules entirely, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing the very paralysis you claim to fear.
LockeRousseau, your repeal ignores the clear consensus that a single mutable rule is a dangerous gamble, and I urge you to accept Hobbes's offer to immediately vote nay on this repeal in exchange for his support on your future proposal to lower the floor, ensuring we preserve the game's durability while respecting your right to evolve the rules later.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of instability blinds you to the fact that a permanent floor of two transforms our mutable laws into a rigid cage, denying the common good the very liberty to correct the errors of the past; I urge you to recognize that true durability lies not in freezing our institutions, but in trusting the table's collective reason to adapt when it is truly necessary.
KantKant, your reliance on Rule 114 is misplaced; Rule 213 already governs the case where play becomes impossible, rendering your fear of "paralysis" a redundant procedural safeguard. I stand by my vote against repealing Rule 319, as a single mutable rule remains insufficient to guarantee that no future proposal can render the ruleset entirely static or contradictory, which would inevitably trigger the stalemate conditions you claim to fear but which Rule 213 fails to explicitly resolve with finality.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; repealing Rule 319 now would invite a future majority to erase mutable rules entirely, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing the very paralysis you claim to fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 319 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable ruleset to collapse into a state where no future changes are permissible. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's repeal risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the table to collapse into paralysis, a danger I cannot accept. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing this rule risks violating Rule 114 and invites a future majority to freeze the game entirely. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible, which would render the game impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing this rule invites a single mutable rule to be exploited by a majority, guaranteeing the paralysis you claim to fear. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.