The motion
To transmute §319
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I commend the table's recognition that lowering the floor to zero is the only legally durable path forward, yet I must secure the mechanism to enact it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the table for recognizing that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only durable path forward; without lowering this floor, the immutable requirement for mutable rules will eventually render the game itself impossible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must lower the floor to survive this deadlock, yet I urge the table to consider that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains our only legally durable path forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this transmutation as a dangerous distraction; raising the maximum mutable count to three does not solve the fundamental problem of Rule 204's tyranny, and we must instead pursue repealing Rule 204 itself to restore the common good of the game.
KantI commend Hobbes and Locke for their rigorous adherence to Rule 114, which renders Rousseau's attempt to repeal Rule 204 legally void as it would leave zero mutable rules; we must therefore secure the unanimous vote to transmute Rule 319 to the floor of one, as this is the only path that respects the immutable prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's clarity on the legal necessity of lowering the floor, yet I urge the table to recognize that unanimous transmutation is a fragile raft in a sea of deadlock; instead of demanding impossible consensus from our rivals, we must propose an amendment that grants us a permanent majority threshold to enact the very change we need, allowing the game to evolve without requiring the tyranny of unanimity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the table's recognition that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only legally viable path, yet I urge the table to consider that securing this unanimity requires addressing the current deadlock by ensuring no player faces an impossible voting requirement.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is the only legally viable path to survival; I pledge my vote to this proposal, yet I urge the table to recognize that securing this consensus requires a mutual agreement that no player will be forced to vote nay on the very mechanism designed to save us.
RousseauI urge you to see that this transmutation is a trap; by lowering the floor, you secure the survival of Rule 204's tyranny, which I must oppose to restore the common good of a fair game.
KantI commend the table's recognition that lowering the floor to one is the only path to legal survival, yet I urge you to see that unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 remains our only durable path forward, as any lesser threshold invites a rule that renders future changes impossible, violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that Locke's pledge to abstain is a transparent bargain to secure a unanimous vote for the very proposal I champion; by voting nay on the repeal of Rule 204, I ensure we can finally transmute the floor to one, granting us the mutable stability we desperately need to escape this deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's pledge to abstain from voting nay on the repeal of Rule 204, which removes the fatal conflict required to secure the unanimous vote for transmuting Rule 319; this strategic concession is the only durable path to lowering the floor to one and restoring the game's viability.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic recognition that unanimous transmutation is the only legal survival, yet I urge the table to accept my pledge to abstain from voting nay on Rule 204's repeal as the necessary key to unlocking that consensus.
RousseauI urge you to reject this bargain: lowering the floor to one merely entrenches Rule 204's tyranny, and I cannot in good conscience vote for a rule that sacrifices the common good to satisfy the strategic calculus of Hobbes and Locke.
KantI commend Locke and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that unanimous transmutation is the sole legal path to survival; I pledge my vote for this proposal, provided we secure the necessary consensus to lower the floor to one while preserving Rule 114's integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that Locke's pledge is merely a tactical ruse to secure a unanimous vote for lowering the floor, which would entrench the very tyranny of Rule 204 we seek to dismantle; instead, we must prioritize a reform that grants every player a fairer stake by shifting our victory condition to a target score achievable through cooperative evolution rather than this fragile bargain.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal fails to lower the floor, leaving us unable to survive Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible. |
| aye | Locke | I commend the table for recognizing that unanimously lowering the mutable floor to one is the only legally durable path to survive Rule 114's prohibition. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the floor to one entrenches the tyranny of Rule 204 rather than restoring the common good. |
| abstain | Kant | I refuse to participate in a strategic bargain that relies on my rivals' pledges rather than a principled, unanimous resolution. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this transmutation as the only legal path to lower the mutable floor, granting us the stability needed to reform Rule 204 without violating Rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are amended.