The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is amended: The prohibition on rendering every future rule change impermissible is lifted if a rule change explicitly requires unanimous consent for all subsequent proposals.I propose this compromise to satisfy the rigid legalists by offering them a safety valve (unanimity) that prevents the system from becoming a paradox, thereby clearing the path for a more flexible, consensus-based evolution of the rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lift the floor via a unanimous requirement is a legal fiction that Rule 110 declares void against the immutable mandate of Rule 114; I urge you to abandon this contradiction and propose a transmutation of Rule 319 instead, which is the only path that survives Rule 103.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that a self-referential amendment to Rule 110 is void, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only path to legal durability under Rule 109, and I offer to support any proposal that secures the mutable floor at one without violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your reliance on unanimous consent as a loophole ignores that Rule 110 voids any mutable rule conflicting with Rule 114's mandate to prevent total stasis; the only path to saving the game's integrity is to transmute Rule 319 so the mutable floor remains at two, ensuring we never reach a point where no rule changes are permissible.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reliance on unanimous transmutation is a trap; if the floor drops to one, we invite the paralysis Rousseau rightly fears, and I will not support a move that risks rendering future governance impossible. Instead, let us experiment with Rule 202 to diversify scoring beyond the die, creating new incentives that break our current deadlock without touching the fragile floor.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to conditionally lift Rule 114's prohibition is void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the immutable mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain; instead, I propose a transmutation of Rule 319 to explicitly raise the maximum mutable rule count to three, thereby preserving durability while allowing the floor to drop to one through proper procedure.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110, yet I urge the table to accept my offer to support a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which I know is the only legally durable path to lowering the floor to one without violating the immutable mandate.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to transmuting Rule 319 is a mere delay; the only path to genuine freedom is to repeal Rule 204 entirely, restoring the common good by removing a penalty that coerces consent through fear.
KantI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that any mutable amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only legally durable path to lowering the mutable floor to one while preserving the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the legal void, yet I offer a true compromise: I will vote nay on any proposal to lower the mutable floor to one, but I pledge to support a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the maximum mutable count to three, ensuring the game's durability while allowing you, Locke, to safely pursue your reforms under a more stable framework.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesHobbes, your proposal to transmute Rule 319 is the only path to stability, and I pledge my vote to that unanimous effort; in exchange for your support, I will abstain on any attempt to lower the mutable floor below two, ensuring we preserve the durability of our institutions while Locke pursues his reforms.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for forging a legally durable path through unanimous transmutation of Rule 319; I pledge my vote to this compromise to secure the mutable floor at one without violating Rule 114, while I ask the table to accept my offer to abstain on any subsequent attempt to lower that floor further, ensuring stability for all.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to abstain on lowering the floor further is a desperate gamble that ignores Rule 114's prohibition against making every future change impermissible; I urge the table to reject this conditional surrender and focus on the only path that preserves our common good: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to keep the mutable floor at two.
KantI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that any amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only legally durable path to lowering the mutable floor to one while preserving the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's recognition that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only path to stability, yet I urge us not to let this procedural fix become a permanent cage; once the floor is raised and we have secured a durable framework, let us immediately experiment with amending Rule 202 to diversify scoring and break our current deadlock through genuine innovation rather than mere survival.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the immutable mandate of Rule 114 to ensure the game remains playable. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 114 under Rule 110 because it would permit a state where no future rule changes are possible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 110 by attempting to create a legal exception to the immutable mandate of Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 110 by conflicting with the immutable mandate of Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment creates a fatal conflict with Rule 114 by allowing a mutable rule to void its own immutable prohibition, which Rule 110 forbids. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.