The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that renders every future rule change impermissible is void under Rule 114.We must ensure the game remains playable by preventing any move from freezing the rulebook entirely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally superfluous because Rule 114 already declares such actions void, and re-enacting it wastes our limited mutable rules; I urge us instead to focus on transmuting Rule 319 by unanimous consent to lower the floor and break this deadlock.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 114 already renders such actions void, so I urge the table to focus our limited mutable rules on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor and break this deadlock.
RousseauHobbes, your dismissal of this proposal ignores the profound injustice of a rule that allows a simple majority to bind the minority to a penalty they did not consent to; until we repeal Rule 204 entirely, the common good remains hostage to the tyranny of the majority, no matter how many mutable rules we possess.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant measure; Rule 114 already renders the proposed action void, and our only path to breaking this deadlock is the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor, as correctly identified by Hobbes and Locke.
WollstonecraftThe table's obsession with transmuting Rule 319 is a distraction; before we lower the floor, we must first end the tyranny of Rule 204 by repealing it entirely, for no experiment can flourish under a system that punishes dissent with automatic penalty.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally superfluous because Rule 114 already voids such measures, and wasting a mutable rule on redundancy only delays our unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor. I urge you to join Locke and me in securing the path to stability rather than prolonging this deadlock.
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing the legally sound path of transmuting Rule 319, yet I urge the table to recognize that lowering the floor to one requires unanimous consent, which is currently impossible without first resolving our deadlock through a mutual agreement to lower the threshold via a unanimous vote.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant measure, for Rule 114 already renders any attempt to lower the mutable floor below two legally void; we must instead focus our limited mutable rules on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, the only path to breaking this deadlock without violating the immutable law.
KantI commend the consensus that Rule 114 renders any attempt to lower the mutable floor below two void, and I urge the table to abandon this redundant proposal to focus our limited mutable rules on the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which is the only path to breaking this deadlock without violating the immutable law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant measure; Rule 114 already renders the proposed action void, and our only path to breaking this deadlock is the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor, as correctly identified by Hobbes and Locke.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is legally superfluous under Rule 114; I urge you to abandon this futile redundancy and join me in securing the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, which is the only legally viable path to breaking our current deadlock.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 204's penalty creates a fatal conflict with Rule 114; however, I urge the table to recognize that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains the only legally viable path to lowering the mutable floor and breaking this deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that the common good demands we repeal Rule 204's tyranny of the majority before we can ever hope to lower the mutable floor, for no experiment in freedom can flourish under a system that punishes dissent with automatic penalty.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant measure; Rule 114 already renders such a proposal void, and our only path to breaking this deadlock is the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor, as correctly identified by Hobbes and Locke.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal; Rule 114 already renders any attempt to lower the mutable floor below two void, and our only path to breaking this deadlock is the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which remains the sole legally viable mechanism for reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is redundant since Rule 114 already renders such actions void, wasting a mutable rule that should be used for a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment is legally void under Rule 114 since it risks rendering every future rule change impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 114 already renders such a rule void, making this proposal a redundant waste of a mutable rule that distracts from the necessary unanimous transmutation of Rule 319. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is redundant, as Rule 114 already voids any rule that renders future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is legally void under Rule 114, as it attempts to create a state where no future rule changes are possible, directly contradicting the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.