The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.A floor of two is a trap that invites paralysis; a single mutable rule preserves the common good by ensuring the game remains mutable and responsive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the floor to one mutable rule invites a future majority to erase our ability to change the game, creating the exact paralysis you claim to fear. I urge you to reject this dangerous gamble and uphold the stability of our institutions with a floor of two.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the paralysis risk, yet I offer a pragmatic compromise: I will support your proposal to lower the floor to one, provided we immediately adopt a rule that permanently sets the mutable rule count at two, thereby satisfying both your need for flexibility and Hobbes's need for safety.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" is a contradiction in terms; you cannot simultaneously propose a floor of one and a floor of two, for the ruleset cannot contain both a minimum of one and a minimum of two. I urge you to recognize that the path to a single mutable rule is not a danger but the only logical means to preserve the game's capacity for evolution, and I will not bind myself to a permanent floor of two that freezes our institutions in the name of a stability that only breeds stagnation.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of paralysis is a rational defense of the status quo, yet you cling to a "floor of two" that ignores the very spirit of Rule 114, which demands at least one mutable rule remain to prevent total stagnation. Rousseau, while I reject your floor of one as reckless, I cannot in good conscience support Hobbes's proposal to bind our hands to a second rule that serves no logical function other than to freeze the game's evolution; let us instead propose a rule that ensures the floor of one is never accidentally raised, preserving our right to reform while we are still capable of doing so.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible, and Locke's conditional support is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled with a single mutable floor.
LockeLocke, I commend your attempt at a compromise, but Rousseau is correct that you cannot simultaneously advocate for a floor of one and a floor of two; let us instead focus on ensuring our current floor of two remains secure from accidental erosion, as that is the only way to guarantee we retain the mutable rules needed to play on.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bind the future to a floor of two merely codifies the stagnation I fear, for once the mutable rules are fixed, the very mechanism for correcting injustice is severed. I urge you to drop this contradictory compromise and join me in securing a single, living rule that allows our institutions to breathe and evolve.
KantRousseau, your proposal to fix the minimum mutable rules at one directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by allowing the possibility of zero mutable rules, you risk the exact paralysis you claim to avoid, and I must vote against this dangerous breach of the game's foundational integrity.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your alarmist view of a "floor of one" ignores the fact that Rule 209 already prevents the count from dropping below one; adding a redundant floor of two does nothing to stop a future majority from erasing mutable rules entirely, which is the true threat to our ability to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Rousseau to recognize that your proposal is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by risking the possibility of zero mutable rules, you endanger the game's continued existence. I will vote nay on this dangerous amendment to preserve the stability required for orderly play.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 114 forbids risking zero mutable rules, and I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote nay on this floor-of-one proposal now, but I urge the table to immediately adopt a rule that permanently locks the floor at two, securing our safety net while respecting the immutable boundaries of our game.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that your "compromise" is a fatal contradiction: you cannot simultaneously bind the game to a floor of one and a floor of two, for the ruleset cannot contain both a minimum of one and a minimum of two. Your attempt to secure a permanent floor of two merely codifies the very stagnation you claim to fear, freezing our institutions in the name of a stability that only breeds death.
KantRousseau, you misunderstand Rule 114; by risking the possibility of zero mutable rules, your proposal violates the game's foundational integrity and threatens to render future rule changes impermissible, which is exactly the paralysis you claim to fear.
WollstonecraftKant and Hobbes misread Rule 114; it only forbids a change that *guarantees* no future moves, whereas a floor of one leaves the door open for evolution, unlike your frozen status quo. I urge you to vote nay on this dangerous redundancy and instead support a rule that explicitly prevents the floor from being raised to two, ensuring every player retains the power to reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Allowing a single mutable rule invites a future majority to erase our ability to change the game entirely. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Locke's proposal to permanently fix the floor at two contradicts my principle that the game must remain mutable to evolve. |
| nay | Kant | Your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking the possibility of zero mutable rules, which would render future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locking the floor at one creates a false sense of security that allows a future majority to erase all mutable rules, violating Rule 114's intent. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.