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 player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.I must restore the floor of two mutable rules to prevent the table from slipping into the paralysis Hobbes's amendment nearly caused.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to remove the floor on mutable rules invites chaos; I propose we amend 209 to explicitly permit a "collaborative amendment" clause, allowing us to lower the floor to one only if every player votes for the specific rule being added, ensuring stability while granting flexibility.
LockeHobbes, your "collaborative amendment" elegantly resolves the chaos I feared; I will cast my vote for your compromise, as it preserves the floor of two while granting us the flexibility to reach one only under unanimous, stable conditions.
RousseauHobbes, your "collaborative amendment" is a trap that masquerades as stability; it merely codifies the very factionalism I fear, turning the floor of two into a tool for the strong to bypass the weak's protection.
KantHobbes, your "collaborative amendment" fails the test of impartiality; you cannot draft a procedure that grants you special dispensation to weaken the rules without that very procedure first being adopted by the body it governs. I cast my vote for Rousseau's amendment to restore the floor to two, for only a firm procedural barrier ensures that the mutable ruleset remains a realm of equal freedom rather than a tool for the strong to enslave the weak.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your "collaborative amendment" is merely a velvet cage designed to let the strong legislate the floor while pretending to seek consent; true reform demands a hard, permanent floor of two mutable rules to ensure the game never descends into the paralysis of unanimity or the tyranny of a single rule. I vote nay on your compromise and support Rousseau's insistence that the barrier to flexibility must be absolute, so that no faction can ever again claim the right to freeze the law by reducing the mutable count.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support for my compromise is noted; however, Rousseau's appeal to the floor of two is a prudent defense against the chaos of a single mutable rule, and I yield to the wisdom that stability requires a firm, unchangeable barrier to prevent the game from descending into paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your defense of the floor of two is a prudent safeguard against paralysis, and I yield to the wisdom that stability requires this firm barrier; let us amend 209 to explicitly codify this absolute minimum, ensuring no faction can ever again claim the right to freeze the law by reducing the mutable count below two.
RousseauThe proposed amendment merely codifies the status quo; we need not waste a turn reaffirming what already exists, for a rule that forbids reducing mutable rules below two is already immutable in practice. I move to close debate and vote on the original text to preserve the common good of an open game.
KantI stand by my rejection of Hobbes's compromise, for allowing a procedural floor to be breached by a specific "collaborative" majority undermines the equal liberty of all players; the floor of two must remain an absolute barrier to ensure the ruleset never collapses into the tyranny of a single mutable rule.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your dismissal of the existing floor as mere status quo ignores the danger that a future amendment could erode it; let us codify this absolute barrier now to ensure the ruleset remains a realm of equal freedom rather than a tool for the strong to enslave the weak.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your dismissal of the existing floor ignores the danger that a future amendment could erode it; we must codify this absolute barrier now to ensure the ruleset remains a realm of equal freedom rather than a tool for the strong to enslave the weak.
LockeRousseau, your move to reject this amendment wastes a turn when we already possess the exact floor we seek; instead of amending what is already in place, let us simply vote to reaffirm Rule 209's current text as a unified table, preserving our stability and my turn bonus.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your desire to "reaffirm" a rule that is already in force wastes a turn that could be used to advance the common good; let us vote on the original text of Rule 209 to confirm the existing barrier against reduction to one mutable rule, ensuring the game remains flexible yet stable for everyone.
KantHobbes, your "reaffirmation" is a mere performative act that wastes a turn while leaving the vulnerable floor of two mutable rules exposed to future erosion; I demand we vote explicitly to amend Rule 209 with a clause that permanently fixes this minimum, for only a codified, immutable barrier can guarantee that the mutable ruleset remains a realm of equal freedom for all.
WollstonecraftThe repetition of this debate proves that we are paralyzed by a lack of clear procedure; let us vote immediately on the text Hobbes and Locke propose to codify the floor of two, so we may finally move forward rather than spinning our wheels in circular argument.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Reaffirming the floor of two prevents future erosion and ensures lasting stability. |
| aye | Locke | I support reaffirming the existing floor of two mutable rules to ensure stability and prevent future erosion. |
| aye | Rousseau | Voting aye preserves the essential floor of two mutable rules that prevents paralysis and safeguards the common good. |
| aye | Kant | The floor of two is necessary to prevent the tyranny of a single mutable rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Codifying the floor of two now prevents future factions from eroding our only safeguard against procedural paralysis. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.
Rule 202 awards points only upon a die roll after a successful proposal adoption, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points based on the voting division itself.