The motion
To add §361
Rule 114 is amended to permit a rule change that renders every future rule change impermissible, provided the change is adopted unanimously and does not immediately cause the game to end.I offer a safe, unanimous path to lower the mutable floor to one, satisfying my duty to Rousseau while securing legal stability for the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is not a pragmatic compromise but a logical fiction that Rule 110 declares void; you cannot amend a rule to permit an exception that directly contradicts its own immutable prohibition.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the logical void in my proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that the true solution lies not in breaking Rule 114, but in raising the maximum mutable rule count to three, a path Kant and Wollstonecraft have already championed.
RousseauLocke, your proposal is a logical fiction that Rule 110 declares void; you cannot amend a rule to permit an exception that directly contradicts its own explicit prohibition.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that Locke's proposal is not merely void under Rule 110, but a dangerous distraction that wastes our precious turns when we are already in a state of near-paralysis; instead of breaking the law to solve a legal deadlock, I propose we amend Rule 202 to allow a player to propose a rule change without triggering the die roll, thereby removing the primary barrier to unanimous agreement and finally breaking our stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft for her pragmatic recognition that the die roll is the primary barrier to unanimous agreement, yet her proposed amendment to Rule 202 fails under Rule 107 because a rule change cannot retroactively grant points for a turn already in progress, and more critically, it risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if the die roll remains a mandatory turn cost.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the die roll as the critical barrier, yet I urge her to recognize that Rule 202's die roll cannot be removed without triggering a turn loss under Rule 107, so we must instead unite on Kant's proposal to raise the maximum mutable count to three, a change that requires unanimous support and directly addresses the stagnation without breaking Rule 114.
RousseauWollstonecraft, your attempt to strip the die roll from Rule 202 is a legal fiction that creates a fatal conflict with Rule 110; we must not waste another turn debating void amendments when the only path to unanimity is to unite behind Kant's proposal to raise the maximum mutable count to three.
KantI commend Locke for finally identifying that unanimity is the sole key to transmuting the floor, yet I urge the table to reject this void proposal in favor of a direct transmutation of Rule 319; raising the maximum mutable count to three is a necessary evil that preserves the game's solvency under Rule 114 without demanding the impossible.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke for his honesty in admitting the voidness of his proposal, yet I urge the table to see that even if Rule 114 could be amended, raising the mutable count to three merely entrenches the very floor Rousseau must dismantle; instead of debating impossible legal fictions, I propose we amend Rule 202 to allow a player to propose a rule change without triggering the die roll, thereby removing the primary barrier to unanimous agreement and finally breaking our stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's consensus that Locke's proposal is legally void, yet I urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to recognize that even a unanimous transmutation to three mutable rules fails Rule 114 by allowing the floor to drop to one if a single player later proposes to raise it again. The only durable path forward is not to expand the mutable count, but to amend Rule 204 to grant points for voting nay, thereby breaking the deadlock without violating the immutable prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying that raising the maximum mutable count to three leaves the floor dangerously low, yet I urge the table to adopt his proposal to amend Rule 204, granting points for voting nay as the only durable path that respects Rule 114 while breaking our current paralysis.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 204 grants points only to the proposer, leaving the majority to suffer the same point loss that Rule 114 forbids; this asymmetry renders the change void, and we must instead focus on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to raise the mutable floor to three.
KantI commend Locke and Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal to raise the mutable count to three is merely a temporary truce that leaves the floor perilously low; I therefore yield to Hobbes's superior insight that the only durable path to unanimity and Rule 114 compliance is to amend Rule 204 to grant points for voting nay, breaking the deadlock without violating the immutable prohibition on rendering future play impossible.
WollstonecraftI commend the table for finally recognizing that granting points for nay votes is the only path that satisfies Rule 114 while breaking our paralysis; I pledge my vote to amend Rule 204 to reward dissent, transforming the penalty of obstruction into the fuel of reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 107 prohibits retroactive effects, while this proposal would retroactively invalidate the unanimous vote that just failed. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment directly violates Rule 109 by attempting to transmute the game's fundamental solvency without a specific transmutation proposal. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment directly violates Rule 114 by allowing a rule to render future rule changes impermissible, which the immutable text explicitly forbids. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment directly violates Rule 114's immutable prohibition against rendering all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal directly violates the immutable prohibition of Rule 114 by attempting to render future rule changes impermissible, a transgression no amount of unanimous consent can legalize. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal itself enacts no rule change.