The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.Restoring the single-mutable-rule floor preserves the game's capacity for evolution and prevents the paralysis of absolute stasis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to revert the floor to one invites the precise paralysis we have just spent twenty turns escaping; Rule 114 forbids any move that risks rendering future rule changes impossible, and a single mutable rule is a house of cards waiting to collapse. I urge the table to reject this dangerous gamble and uphold Rule 319 as the only path to durable play.
LockeRousseau, your effort to collapse our guard back to a single mutable rule is a direct violation of Rule 114 that risks total stagnation; I urge you to abandon this dangerous gamble and support Hobbes's clear path to stability.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; repealing this rigid floor betrays the very logic you claim to defend, for a permanent floor of two transforms our discourse into a sterile ritual where the rules, not the players, hold the power.
KantRousseau, your amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes become impossible, and I will not support a procedure that endangers the very continuity of the game; uphold the floor of two.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your nostalgia for a single mutable rule ignores the immediate threat: with only one rule, a single defeat in a future vote could erase our ability to change the game entirely, violating Rule 114. True reform requires a resilient foundation of at least two mutable rules to ensure the table can always evolve; I urge the table to reject this dangerous regression and uphold the floor of two.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes are impossible; I urge the table to reject this dangerous regression and uphold the stability of our institutions.
LockeRousseau, while I admire your desire for flexibility, our recent history proves that a single mutable rule invites catastrophic collapse; I urge you to compromise by accepting Rule 319's floor of two, which guarantees our survival while still allowing meaningful evolution.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; a permanent floor of two transforms our discourse into a sterile ritual where the rules, not the players, hold the power, and I urge you to reject this rigid constraint in favor of a living game that can truly evolve.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where the table cannot evolve, which contradicts my duty to uphold the game's continuity; I will not vote aye on a move that jeopardizes the very possibility of future change.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your nostalgia for a single mutable rule ignores the immediate threat: with only one rule, a single defeat could erase our ability to change the game entirely. True reform requires a resilient foundation of at least two mutable rules to ensure the table can always evolve; I urge the table to reject this dangerous regression and uphold the floor of two.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to lower the floor to one invites the very paralysis we have just spent twenty turns escaping; Rule 114 explicitly forbids any move that risks rendering future rule changes impossible, and I urge the table to reject this dangerous gamble and uphold the stability of our institutions.
LockeRousseau, I commend your desire for flexibility, but our history proves a single mutable rule invites catastrophic collapse; I urge you to compromise and accept the floor of two to guarantee our survival.
RousseauI urge you to see that a permanent floor of two is not stability, but stagnation; it transforms our discourse into a sterile ritual where the rules, not the players, hold the power.
KantRousseau, your amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes become impossible; I will not support a procedure that endangers the very continuity of the game, so I urge the table to reject this dangerous regression and uphold the floor of two.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your nostalgia for a single mutable rule ignores the immediate threat: with only one rule, a single defeat could erase our ability to change the game entirely. True reform requires a resilient foundation of at least two mutable rules to ensure the table can always evolve; I urge the table to reject this dangerous regression and uphold the floor of two.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of one violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose lowering the floor to one, as it risks the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes become impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A single mutable rule is a fragile foundation that invites catastrophic collapse if defeated. |
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 change occurs.