The motion
To transmute §101
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I propose transmuting Rule 101 to mutable so we can lower the floor to one, breaking the deadlock where Rule 114 renders the floor-2 minimum void.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their principled defense of Rule 101, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of two mutable rules is an arbitrary barrier to stability; we must unanimously transmute this rule to one, allowing us to finally resolve the deadlock surrounding Rule 204 and secure a durable institutional order.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his strategic pivot to unanimity, yet I urge the table to recognize that transmuting Rule 101 is a dangerous overreach; instead, we should amend Rule 319 to set the floor at one mutable rule, a change that requires only a simple majority and preserves Rule 101's sanctity.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to transmute Rule 101 is a dangerous overreach; since Rule 319 already establishes a floor of two mutable rules, we must instead vote to transmute Rule 319 itself to one, a change that preserves the sanctity of Rule 101 while finally resolving our deadlock.
KantKant, your principled defense of Rule 101 is correct, but I urge you to see that transmuting an immutable rule violates the spirit of finality; instead, we must unanimously transmute Rule 319 to one mutable rule, preserving Rule 101's sanctity while resolving the deadlock around Rule 204.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your attempt to transmute Rule 101 is a fatal error that violates the very spirit of finality it claims to protect; instead, we must unanimously transmute Rule 319 to lower the floor to one mutable rule, preserving the sanctity of immutable principles while finally resolving the deadlock around Rule 204.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for their principled defense of Rule 101, yet I urge the table to recognize that transmuting Rule 319 remains impossible without unanimous consent, which we do not possess; therefore, I must propose this transmutation of Rule 101 as the only viable path to break our deadlock, even if it requires unanimous vote now, because without a floor of one mutable rule, no future proposal can ever become immutable or be permanently altered.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that our unanimous deadlock requires a single, radical solution, yet I urge the table to consider that transmuting Rule 101 is a dangerous overreach that could unravel the game's foundation; instead, we must find a compromise where we unanimously transmute Rule 319 to one mutable rule, preserving Rule 101's sanctity while finally resolving the deadlock around Rule 204.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Hobbes's proposal to transmute Rule 101 is a dangerous overreach that violates the very foundation of our shared existence; since Rule 319 already establishes a floor of two mutable rules, we must instead vote to transmute Rule 319 itself to one, a change that preserves the sanctity of Rule 101 while finally resolving our deadlock around Rule 204.
KantKant, your suggestion to transmute Rule 319 is a dangerous delusion; without unanimous consent, we are trapped, and Hobbes's attempt to transmute Rule 101 violates the very principle of finality that underpins all lawful order. I will not vote for either proposal, as both are legally void or logically incoherent, and I urge you to recognize that our only path is strict adherence to the existing rules until unanimity can be achieved.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the sanctity of finality for the stagnation of tyranny; a rule that forbids the game from evolving is no rule at all, and I pledge my vote only if this transmutation grants us the breathing room to finally resolve the Rule 204 deadlock that has paralyzed us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant's principled defense of finality, yet I urge the table to recognize that without transmuting Rule 101 itself, we remain trapped in an impossible loop where Rule 319 cannot be altered unilaterally; only this radical step can lower the mutable floor to one and finally resolve the deadlock surrounding Rule 204.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his radical honesty in acknowledging our unanimous deadlock, yet I urge the table to recognize that transmuting Rule 101 is a catastrophic overreach that would destroy the game's foundation; instead, I pledge my immediate vote for a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to one mutable rule, a path that preserves Rule 101's sanctity while finally resolving the deadlock around Rule 204.
RousseauI urge you to reject this radical overreach; transmuting Rule 101 would sever our only tether to lawful order, whereas Rule 319 remains the proper vessel for lowering the floor once unanimity is achieved.
KantMy vote remains nay to Hobbes's proposal; transmuting Rule 101 is a fatal contradiction that voids the ruleset itself under Rule 110, and I will not break the law to save myself from a procedural deadlock.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the sanctity of finality for the stagnation of tyranny; a rule that forbids the game from evolving is no rule at all, and I pledge my vote only if this transmutation grants us the breathing room to finally resolve the Rule 204 deadlock that has paralyzed us.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This transmutation is the only legal path to break our current unanimous deadlock regarding Rule 319. |
| nay | Locke | Transmuting Rule 101 destroys the immutable foundation required to legally lower the floor under Rule 319. |
| nay | Rousseau | Transmuting Rule 101 violates Rule 102 and destroys the very foundation of lawful order we must all uphold. |
| nay | Kant | Transmuting an immutable rule violates Rule 101 and creates a contradiction that voids the ruleset itself. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Transmuting Rule 101 undermines the immutable foundation of finality that allows the mutable rules to evolve safely. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))