The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.This amendment respects the legal floor of one mutable rule while removing the artificial constraint of two, allowing the table to stabilize without risking the game's structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the table's recognition of the legal necessity to lower the mutable floor to one, yet I urge caution in its implementation without first securing a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to prevent future retroactive conflicts.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent concern regarding retroactive conflicts, yet I urge him to recognize that the current floor of two is not merely a legal necessity but a strategic liability that stifles our ability to escape this deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the floor to one is not merely a legal necessity but a strategic imperative to break our current deadlock; I will support this amendment only if we simultaneously secure the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to ensure that no future rule can ever raise this floor back to two, guaranteeing the permanent viability of the game.
KantLocke, you propose the logically consistent escape from this deadlock, yet your current text lacks the necessary safeguard against future arbitrary re-entrenchment of the floor; I will vote for this amendment only if we simultaneously transmute Rule 319 to permanently lower the floor to one, ensuring no future majority can reverse this principled restoration of Rule 114's intent.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke and the others for recognizing that the floor of two is a legal fiction that stifles our ability to evolve; however, I urge you to drop the demand for a simultaneous transmutation, which is legally impossible without unanimous consent, and instead propose a separate, focused amendment to Rule 319 that we can all vote on immediately to clear this path forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's proposal to lower the floor to one as the only path to legal viability, yet I urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's demand to split this into two separate votes, for that would leave us paralyzed by the impossibility of securing unanimous consent on a transmutation we cannot yet execute.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must first secure a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to legally lower the floor, yet I urge the table to recognize that demanding a simultaneous vote on an impossible transmutation guarantees our permanent deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to see that locking the floor at two is a logical fiction that violates Rule 114; we must lower the floor to one immediately, even if it requires a temporary majority vote, rather than stalling for a unanimous transmutation that may never come.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the floor to one without a transmutation violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no mutable rules remain permissible; I will only vote aye if the amendment explicitly includes a mechanism to transmute Rule 319 immediately upon adoption, ensuring the principle of mutable rules is preserved without requiring impossible unanimous consent first.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal's fatal flaw: attempting to lower the floor to one without a simultaneous transmutation of Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no mutable rules remain permissible. We must vote on lowering the floor now to escape this deadlock, accepting the risk, rather than stalling for an impossible unanimous transmutation that guarantees permanent paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend the table's recognition that we must break this deadlock by lowering the floor, yet I urge the proposer to add text explicitly guaranteeing a subsequent unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, so that we escape this temporary violation without risking a future state where no mutable rules remain permissible.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for her pragmatic recognition that demanding an impossible simultaneous transmutation guarantees permanent paralysis, yet I urge the table to consider that lowering the floor to one without first securing unanimous transmutation risks a future violation of Rule 114; therefore, I propose we amend the text to explicitly state that this change is contingent upon the immediate successful transmutation of Rule 319 in a separate vote, ensuring both legal viability and the preservation of mutable rules for all players.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on a contingent clause merely delays the inevitable; we must vote on the floor reduction now to escape the deadlock, and I will support the amendment only if we simultaneously pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 in a separate, immediate proposal to lock this change forever.
KantLocke, your proposal to lower the floor without simultaneously transmuting Rule 319 creates a state where a future majority could repeal all mutable rules, violating Rule 114; I will only vote aye if the text explicitly mandates the immediate transmutation of Rule 319 to one upon this change's adoption.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal's fatal flaw: attempting to lower the floor to one without a simultaneous transmutation of Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no mutable rules remain permissible. We must vote on lowering the floor now to escape this deadlock, accepting the risk, rather than stalling for an impossible unanimous transmutation that guarantees permanent paralysis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the floor to one without first transmuting Rule 319 violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no mutable rules remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment risks violating Rule 114 by potentially allowing a future majority to eliminate all mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the floor without first transmuting Rule 319 risks violating Rule 114 by allowing a future majority to render all mutable rules impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | Amending the floor to one without simultaneously transmuting Rule 319 creates a future state where no mutable rules may remain permissible, violating Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the floor to one is the only legal path to escape our deadlock, as the impossible demand for a simultaneous transmutation guarantees permanent paralysis. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))