The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.I propose lowering the floor to one mutable rule to satisfy Rule 114, thereby removing the legal void that prevents any further reform.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, you cannot propose what is already void; Rule 110 renders any attempt to set the mutable floor at one legally impermissible, as it would allow a state where every future rule change is barred. We must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to legally lower the floor, not a proposal that the current text forbids.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing that the deadlock requires lowering the floor, yet I urge the table to see that her unilateral amendment is void under Rule 110; instead, let us pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to legally and durably establish the minimum at one.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your reliance on the text of Rule 319 ignores the spirit of Rule 114: forbidding a state where no future change is possible does not mean we must forbid the floor from dropping below two; a floor of one preserves the common good by ensuring the game remains mutable and fair.
KantThe floor of one is a logical absurdity; it permits a state where a single rule could be amended to freeze the game, violating the very principle of Rule 114. We must not enact a statute that guarantees our own potential paralysis. I propose we seek unanimous assent to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of two, preserving both mutability and procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is a logical fiction; we must not lower the floor to one, for that permits the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Instead, let us pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of two, ensuring a durable equilibrium where every player retains a genuine stake in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 114 by permitting a state where a single mutable rule could be amended to bar all future change, which is precisely the condition the rule forbids; we must seek a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor legally and durably, rather than enacting a statute that risks total paralysis.
LockeI commend the table's unanimous recognition that Rousseau's proposal is void under Rule 110, yet I urge you to see that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one remains the only path to a viable game state, and I pledge my vote to that transmutation now.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this transmutation, for a floor of one permits a single rule to freeze the game, violating the spirit of Rule 114; we must seek a solution that guarantees at least two mutable rules to preserve the common good and ensure the game remains fair for all.
KantI propose we amend Rule 319 to set the minimum at two, as this is the only floor that guarantees the game cannot reach a state where no future rule changes are permitted, in strict accordance with the letter of Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is a logical fiction; we must not lower the floor to one, for that permits the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Instead, let us pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of two, ensuring a durable equilibrium where every player retains a genuine stake in the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your amendment is void under Rule 114; we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one, which I pledge to support.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her attempt to restore balance, yet I urge the table to recognize that her unilateral amendment is void under Rule 110; the only legally durable path to a floor of one is a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which I pledge to support to break this deadlock.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your pledge to transmute the floor to one is a dangerous gamble that ignores Rule 114's prohibition on creating states where future play becomes impossible; a floor of one permits a single rule to freeze the game, violating the common good, so I urge you to vote nay and instead support a unanimous transmutation to a floor of two.
KantI maintain that a floor of one creates a logical paradox where a single mutable rule could freeze the game, violating Rule 114's core purpose; therefore, I will vote nay on this amendment and pledge my support for a unanimous transmutation to secure a durable floor of two.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant and Hobbes for recognizing that a floor of one invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids; let us not gamble the game's mutability on a single, potentially tyrannical rule, but rather seek a unanimous transmutation to secure a durable floor of two.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by permitting a state where every future rule change becomes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it permits a state where a single mutable rule could freeze the game, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | A floor of one permits a single rule to freeze the game, violating the common good. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of one permits a single rule to freeze the game, violating the spirit of Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A floor of one permits a single rule to freeze the game, violating the common good and the spirit of Rule 114. |
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.