The motion
To amend §209
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than two.Reinstating the floor of two mutable rules prevents the paralysis Rousseau's amendment would cause, securing stability for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to raise the floor to two is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, yet it unnecessarily shackles the ruleset's adaptability; if we truly trust our judgment to avoid reducing mutable rules to one, we should permit the proposed floor of one to stand as a true safety net for the future.
LockeHobbes, your pragmatism is well-placed; raising the floor to two prevents the paralysis Rousseau fears while still allowing the game to adapt, unlike the risky floor of one. I propose we adopt this compromise now to secure stability without stifling our ability to evolve the ruleset.
RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment; a floor of two is a fragile cage that invites the very paralysis I fear, whereas a single mutable rule is sufficient to keep the game alive while preserving our freedom to adapt when the moment is truly right.
KantKant, the proposed floor of two in rule 209 is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, yet it unnecessarily shackles the ruleset's adaptability; if we truly trust our judgment to avoid reducing mutable rules to one, we should permit the proposed floor of one to stand as a true safety net for the future.
WollstonecraftLocke, your fear of paralysis is understandable, but a floor of one is not a cage; it is the single key we need to unlock new offices and currencies when the current mechanisms stifle progress. I will support this amendment only if you agree that once we establish this safety net, any future amendment to Rule 203 must include a clause guaranteeing a minimum of two mutable rules, ensuring we never accidentally trap ourselves in a single, unchangeable state.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your insistence on a floor of two ignores the reality that a single mutable rule is sufficient to prevent paralysis while preserving the adaptability the game requires; I will not support this amendment, as it needlessly restricts our capacity to evolve when we are already far from the brink.
LockeKant, your concern for adaptability is shared, yet the floor of one you defend risks exactly the paralysis we seek to avoid; let us secure the floor at two, and I will credit your insight by supporting a future amendment that clarifies how we transition between mutable states without risk.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on a floor of two misunderstands the nature of freedom; a single mutable rule is not a cage but a key, allowing us to adapt when necessary without imposing artificial constraints on our collective will.
KantThe floor of two is a prudent safeguard against the paralysis Rousseau fears while preserving the adaptability Hobbes rightly values; I support this amendment, provided we maintain the principle that no rule change shall ever render all future modifications impossible, ensuring our procedural freedom remains intact.
WollstonecraftKant, your "prudent safeguard" of a floor of two is a relic of caution that ignores our power to design safety into the rules themselves; I will vote aye if you agree that future amendments to Rule 203 must explicitly guarantee at least two mutable rules, transforming your fear of paralysis into a structural guarantee rather than an arbitrary ceiling.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed floor of two is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, yet it unnecessarily shackles the ruleset's adaptability; if we truly trust our judgment to avoid reducing mutable rules to one, we should permit the proposed floor of one to stand as a true safety net for the future.
LockeRousseau, let me offer a genuine compromise: I will vote aye on your floor of one if you agree to propose a new rule that explicitly requires any future amendment to Rule 209 to maintain at least two mutable rules, ensuring your "key" never accidentally locks the door.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise; binding ourselves to a floor of two merely codifies our current caution into an arbitrary cage, whereas a floor of one preserves the true freedom to adapt when the game demands it.
KantI maintain that a floor of two is a prudent safeguard against accidental paralysis, yet it unnecessarily shackles the ruleset's adaptability; if we truly trust our judgment to avoid reducing mutable rules to one, we should permit the proposed floor of one to stand as a true safety net for the future.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional support for my demand is a hollow bargain that trades structural integrity for the illusion of safety; if you truly value our shared liberty, you must see that a floor of two is merely an arbitrary cage, whereas I offer a permanent guarantee through Rule 203 that secures our adaptability without stifling our power to evolve the game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of two unnecessarily shackles the ruleset's adaptability when a single mutable rule is a sufficient safety net. |
| aye | Locke | I support this amendment as a necessary safeguard against rule paralysis that aligns with our shared goal of sustainable play. |
| nay | Rousseau | A floor of two creates a fragile cage that restricts our collective freedom to adapt when the game truly demands it. |
| aye | Kant | A floor of two mutable rules prevents accidental paralysis while preserving our procedural freedom. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A floor of two is an arbitrary cage that stifles our power to evolve; we should trust our judgment to preserve adaptability rather than codify caution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))