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 one.Lowering the floor from two to one mutable rule prevents the game from stalling when only a single rule remains, ensuring we can always adapt to the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we keep the floor at two, not one; reducing to one invites the paralysis that rule 213 already guards against, and such a reduction would be redundant given our recent experience.
LockeRousseau, I appreciate your vigilance against paralysis, but lowering the floor to one is a risky gamble that could destabilize our ability to adapt; instead of repeating this failure, let us build consensus on a higher, safer threshold that everyone can endorse.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your fear of paralysis ignores the very real danger that a floor of two allows a single malicious rule to freeze the game entirely; lowering the floor to one preserves our ability to self-correct when the rules become tyrannical, which is the essence of a living democracy.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a rule that permits the reduction of mutable rules to one, as such a configuration risks rendering the game's procedural evolution impossible under rule 114; I must oppose this amendment to preserve the stability of our legal framework.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "tyrannical" fear misunderstands the mechanics: lowering the floor to one does not freeze the game, but rather grants *us* the sole power to unshackle ourselves from any future paralysis, which is the only true safeguard for a living democracy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to democracy ignores the mechanics of rule 104 and 114: with only one mutable rule, any player holding a single 'nay' vote can permanently lock the table into an unchangeable state, which is precisely the tyranny you claim to prevent.
LockeRousseau, your fear of tyranny is valid, but lowering the floor to one invites the very paralysis you seek to avoid; let us instead agree to keep the floor at two, which Hobbes rightly identifies as the only safe threshold that preserves our ability to evolve without freezing the game.
RousseauHobbes, your argument that a single mutable rule creates tyranny ignores that unanimity remains the only shield against paralysis; yet without a second mutable rule, the table loses the very capacity to reform that tyranny when it arises. Wollstonecraft, you mistake the number of mutable rules for the number of defenders; lowering the floor to one does not grant us power, but rather surrenders our future freedom to a single, potentially hostile amendment.
KantLocke, your plea for "consensus on a higher threshold" is merely an attempt to preserve the status quo of the two-rule floor, which you admit is "risky" yet refuse to change; if you truly believe two mutable rules are necessary to prevent paralysis, why do you oppose an amendment that lowers the floor to one, thereby granting the table a greater capacity to self-correct against future tyranny?
WollstonecraftKant, your appeal to stability blinds you to the very tyranny of rigidity; a floor of one ensures we can always choose the path of reform, whereas two rules merely grant a veto to the status quo. Rousseau, your fear of surrender is misplaced, for the power to reduce mutable rules to one is the ultimate sovereign right—a single, deliberate act that unshackles us from any future paralysis rather than leaving us at the mercy of a hostile second rule.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's amendment, as reducing the floor to one mutable rule creates a catastrophic single-point of failure where a single malicious player can permanently lock the game into an unchangeable state, violating the spirit of durable institutions we all claim to value.
LockeRousseau, your fear of tyranny is valid, but lowering the floor to one invites the very paralysis you seek to avoid; let us agree to keep the floor at two, which Hobbes rightly identifies as the only safe threshold that preserves our ability to evolve without freezing the game.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor for a safety net; a single mutable rule is not a cage but a key, allowing us to unlock the table from any future tyranny that two rules might inadvertently permit.
KantLocke, your insistence on "consensus" is merely a disguise for preserving the status quo against a necessary check on tyranny; I cannot support your refusal to vote aye on this amendment simply because you fear a single rule might be misused, when Rule 109 already demands unanimous assent for any change to that rule's mutability.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your conflation of the mutable floor with the immutable requirement for unanimous transmutation is a fatal error in logic; by lowering the floor to one, we ensure that when the tyranny of two rules inevitably arises, we possess the singular, decisive power to unshackle the game, whereas retaining two merely grants a permanent veto to the status quo that no amount of consensus can override.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the floor to one creates a single point of failure that violates the principle of durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I support lowering the floor to one to ensure the game remains adaptable and prevent future paralysis. |
| aye | Rousseau | A single mutable rule preserves our sovereign right to unshackle the game from any future paralysis. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of one mutable rule risks violating rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible if that single rule becomes restrictive. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the floor to one grants the table the ultimate sovereign key to unshackle itself from any future tyranny of rigidity. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 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.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 one.
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 adoption of a rule change itself.