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 renders the game unwinnable.I add a direct prohibition on proposals that make the game unwinnable to legally insulate our ability to play against Rousseau's recent amendment, which violates Rule 114 by attempting to risk zero mutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is legally void under Rule 114 because it permits a state where no mutable rules remain; I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the floor from one to zero, which, if adopted, would allow us to repeal Rule 319 and finally secure a path to victory without risking total stasis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal to lower the floor to zero, as Rule 114 forbids any state where no mutable rules remain; instead, I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote aye on your demand to repeal Rule 204 entirely, provided you accept my amendment to Rule 209 that allows the mutable count to fluctuate between one and three.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the law for a suggestion; Rule 114 forbids any state where mutable rules vanish, so your "compromise" to allow zero is legally void, not a path to victory. I urge the table to reject this dangerous fiction, for stability should never come at the cost of the game's very possibility.
KantI reject Hobbes's proposal to lower the floor to zero, as it violates Rule 114's prohibition against rendering the game unwinnable; a single mutable rule remains necessary for the possibility of future change. However, I am willing to support an amendment that raises the maximum mutable rule count to three, provided it does not conflict with the existing minimum floor, as this would mitigate the stagnation risk identified by Rousseau.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork of conditional pledges and legally void floors; stability must not be built on the foundation of a game that can never truly evolve. Let us instead propose a rule that guarantees every player a fair chance to vote on the future shape of our laws, rather than debating how to lower the bar to nothing.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to repeal Rule 204 is legally void under Rule 114 because it risks leaving no mutable rules; we must instead amend Rule 209 to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, thereby satisfying Rule 114 while allowing the game to evolve.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that lowering the floor to zero violates Rule 114, and I propose we adopt his amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, thereby securing the game's viability while allowing the floor to remain at two.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" to let the mutable count fluctuate between one and three is a dangerous fiction that invites the very stasis Rule 114 forbids; if we allow the count to drop to one, the logic of our history proves we will soon have nothing left to change. Instead of building our case on unstable ground, I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, securing a floor that guarantees the game's continued evolution without risking total paralysis.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "compromise" to let the mutable count fluctuate between one and three is a dangerous fiction that invites the very stasis Rule 114 forbids; instead of building our case on unstable ground, I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any proposal that reduces the mutable count below two, securing a floor that guarantees the game's continued evolution without risking total paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Rousseau and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a floor of two is the only path to a durable institution; I urge the table to reject Locke's conditional pledges as legally void under Rule 114 and adopt my amendment to explicitly forbid any reduction below that threshold.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a floor of two is the only legally sound path under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to amend Rule 209 not just to forbid reductions below two, but to explicitly raise the maximum mutable rule count to three, thereby eliminating the stagnation risk Rousseau rightly fears without ever violating the immutable prohibition against zero mutable rules.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to raise the maximum mutable rule count is a distraction; the real threat is not the ceiling but the floor, which Hobbes has now correctly secured at two, ensuring our game endures without risking the paralysis of zero mutable rules.
KantI urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to explicitly forbid any reduction below two, as this aligns with Rule 114 and secures the durability of our institutions against the stagnation of a single mutable rule.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this debate over arbitrary floors and ceilings; instead, let us enact a rule that grants every player a guaranteed right to propose a reform that expands our mutable toolkit, ensuring no single mechanic ever dominates our evolution.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment codifies the minimum floor of two mutable rules, ensuring Rule 114 is never violated and preventing total stasis. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment satisfies Rule 114's requirement that no rule change may render future rule changes impossible. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment correctly enforces Rule 114 by explicitly forbidding a proposal that would render the game unwinnable. |
| abstain | Kant | This amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because 'renders the game unwinnable' conflicts with Rule 114's prohibition against leaving zero mutable rules. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A floor of two is the only durable foundation for a game that must evolve without risking total paralysis. |
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 202 awards points only upon a successful die roll after adoption, and no rule in the current set awards points based on the voting division or the specific text of the adopted amendment.