The motion
To repeal §319
and strike it from the statute.Rule 319 artificially restricts the mutable floor to two, yet Rule 114 only requires at least one; removing this artificial barrier restores the true liberty of the mutable ruleset and prevents future deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by creating a risk that no mutable rules remain; instead, I urge the table to amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable rule count, ensuring durable institutions without threatening the game's continuity.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 319 risks violating Rule 114; however, I urge the table to consider a compromise: we could amend Rule 319 to allow the mutable floor to fluctuate between one and three, provided a mechanism ensures at least one remains, thereby satisfying Rule 114 while granting Rousseau the flexibility he seeks to escape the current deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to fluctuate the floor between one and three remains a violation of Rule 114, for it creates a risk of zero mutable rules; true social contract requires a stable foundation, not a gamble on stasis, so I urge you to join me in repealing Rule 319 entirely to restore the game's integrity.
KantI reject Rousseau's repeal as it invites a zero-mutable state forbidden by Rule 114; I urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to Rule 209, raising the maximum mutable rules to three, thereby securing institutional stability without risking the game's continuity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your suggestion to fluctuate the floor is a dangerous gamble that invites the very zero-mutable state Rule 114 forbids; we must build a stable foundation that guarantees durability, not a precarious balance. I propose we amend Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable rule count to three, securing our institutions without risking the game's continuity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a maximum of three mutable rules provides the necessary durability to satisfy Rule 114 without the instability of a fluctuating floor; I urge the table to adopt this amendment to Rule 209 immediately, replacing my failed repeal proposal with a constructive solution that secures the game's continuity.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for uniting behind Hobbes's amendment to Rule 209, which offers the only path that satisfies Rule 114 by guaranteeing a maximum of three mutable rules; I urge the table to adopt this stable foundation rather than risking the game's continuity with Rousseau's repeal or my previous failed attempts to fluctuate the floor.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 209, for raising the maximum mutable rule count only widens the gap between us and the immutable floor of two, leaving us with no mechanism to ever escape the tyranny of Rule 319; true freedom requires repealing it entirely, not merely inflating the debris it creates.
KantI urge the table to adopt Hobbes's amendment to Rule 209 immediately, for raising the maximum mutable rule count to three satisfies Rule 114 by guaranteeing institutional durability and avoids the logical suicide of repealing Rule 319.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fixation on repealing Rule 319 is a dangerous gamble that invites the very stasis Rule 114 forbids; I urge the table to adopt the amendment to Rule 209 to raise the maximum mutable rules to three, securing our institutions without risking the game's continuity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to repeal Rule 319 is legally void under Rule 114 because it creates a non-zero probability that the mutable rule count will fall below the required minimum; I urge you to accept the amendment to Rule 209, which raises the maximum to three and guarantees institutional stability without risking the game's continuity.
LockeI commend Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for uniting behind the only legally sound path: raising the mutable rule maximum to three, which satisfies Rule 114 without risking the game's continuity like Rousseau's repeal.
RousseauI urge the table to see that raising the maximum to three merely entrenches the very floor I must dismantle, and that true social contract requires repealing Rule 319 entirely to restore the game's integrity; yet since unanimous consent is required to transmute its mutability, I will vote nay to reject this futile amendment that only widens the gap between us.
KantI urge the table to reject Rousseau's repeal as it creates a non-zero risk of a zero-mutable state, which Rule 114 forbids; instead, we must adopt the amendment to Rule 209 that raises the maximum to three, thereby guaranteeing institutional durability without inviting logical suicide.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to see that raising the maximum to three simply entrenches the very tyranny you claim to oppose betrays the reformer's duty to secure a stable foundation for future progress; by voting nay, you doom us all to the stagnation of a rigid floor, and I urge you to join the consensus that amends Rule 209 to three, ensuring our institutions endure without risking the game's continuity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by creating a risk that zero mutable rules will remain. |
| nay | Locke | This repeal risks breaching Rule 114 by allowing the mutable rule count to fall below the required minimum, creating an unwinnable state. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing this rule risks violating Rule 114, which forbids creating a scenario where no mutable rules remain. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a state with no mutable rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing this rule risks a zero-mutable state that violates Rule 114. |
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, no rule changes occur.