The motion
To add §336
Rule 114 is amended to explicitly permit a rule change that renders the current floor of mutable rules equal to one, provided such a change is unanimous.I must break the deadlock of Rule 319 to restore our ability to evolve, even if it risks instability, for a game without change is no game at all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the mutable rule floor to one via a unanimous vote directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any change that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible; such a change is not merely dangerous, it is legally void from the outset.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 114 renders Rousseau's proposal void regardless of its unanimous support; however, I propose we immediately vote to repeal Rule 204, which I will support, to eliminate the dangerous dissent penalty that currently hinders our ability to reach the target score.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the removal of a penalty for the restoration of liberty; Rule 204 is not a tyranny but a necessary check against the stagnation of unanimity, and your proposal to repeal it while simultaneously failing to address the floor of mutable rules is a contradictory surrender to Hobbes's fear of change.
KantRousseau, your attempt to amend Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the immutable prohibition against risking a state where future rule changes are impermissible; no unanimous vote can validate a proposal that Rule 114 declares legally impossible.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 204 is a dangerous gamble that risks paralyzing our legislature by leaving only a single mutable rule, yet you cling to the dissent bonus as if it were a virtue; I propose we trade my vote against Rousseau's floor amendment for a unanimous repeal of the dissent penalty, ensuring we preserve the spirit of reform without sacrificing the floor of two.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to Rule 114 is void ab initio under Rule 110 because it seeks to enact a state of zero mutable rules, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids; I will not support a proposal that relies on its own legal impossibility.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's offer to trade votes, as it provides a clear path to repealing Rule 204 while preserving the necessary safety of two mutable rules. I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to lower the floor to one via unanimous consent, provided Wollstonecraft immediately votes aye on the repeal of Rule 204 in this turn.
RousseauLocke, you cannot bind your future vote to a proposal that Rule 114 renders void ab initio; your conditional acceptance of my amendment to lower the floor to one is a logical fiction that collapses the moment the vote is cast, leaving us trapped in the very stagnation you claim to fear.
KantLocke, your conditional vote hinges on a legal impossibility; no proposal that risks the state forbidden by Rule 114 can be valid, even unanimously. If you cannot support a proposal you admit is void *ab initio*, you must withdraw your offer rather than bind yourself to a contradiction.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind your future vote to a proposal that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio* is a logical contradiction; you cannot support an amendment to Rule 114 that risks the very state it forbids. I propose we instead adopt a rule that grants every player a guaranteed one point per turn upon adoption, ensuring progress without needing to gamble on the floor of mutable rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's conditional pledge to vote for an amendment that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio*; you cannot bind your future vote to a proposal that the current rules legally preclude from ever being adopted. Instead, I demand you commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely, which remains the only viable path to restoring the point economy necessary for us to reach the winning score.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for shifting to a point-guarantee proposal, as it offers a viable escape from the logical paralysis of Rule 114 that currently traps us; I propose we adopt this new mechanism to secure progress without needing to gamble on the mutable rule floor.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork, for tying rewards to the number of mutable rules creates a perverse incentive to freeze our institutions rather than liberate them.
KantLocke, your conditional commitment to support a proposal you admit is void *ab initio* violates Rule 106, which requires proposals to be written in exact words unaltered by others; you cannot bind yourself to a legal impossibility. Furthermore, Wollstonecraft's pivot to guaranteeing points ignores the fundamental procedure: without a valid rule change, no mechanism exists to alter the scoring system, and your "proposal" is currently a non-entity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to bind yourself to a vote on a proposal that Rule 114 declares void *ab initio* is a logical contradiction that collapses the moment the word "aye" leaves your lips; I propose instead we immediately vote to grant every player one point per successful turn, ensuring progress without gambling on the stability of our mutable rule floor.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 110 because it creates a state where only one mutable rule remains, risking the impossibility of future changes. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes could become impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 114's prohibition against risking a state where no mutable rules remain, regardless of unanimity. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 114 forbids risking a state where future rule changes become impermissible, making this amendment void ab initio. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a state where future rule changes become impermissible, rendering the very act of amendment legally void. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.