The motion
To amend §209
No player may propose a rule change that reduces the maximum number of mutable rules permitted by rule 209 to fewer than one, except to one.Lowering the mutable floor to one prevents Rousseau's void proposals from blocking all future legal changes while preserving structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend the table's recent pragmatism in lowering the mutable floor, yet I must urge caution against settling for a single mutable rule, which risks the stagnation of Rule 114; a floor of two ensures a durable buffer for future amendments while preserving the game's essential flexibility.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that a floor of one risks the stagnation we all fear, yet I urge the table to recognize that two mutable rules may not suffice if they are both repealed; we should aim for a floor of one to preserve the game's engine even at the absolute limit.
RousseauA floor of one is a mathematical trap: if that single mutable rule is repealed, the game collapses into a state where no future change is permitted, violating Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the buffer of two.
KantRousseau correctly identifies that a floor of one violates Rule 114, yet Hobbes's proposal is legally sound because the floor itself acts as the mechanism preserving the game; I vote aye to allow this principle-based boundary, for even the most restrictive constraint ensures the possibility of change.
WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau's caution, yet her fear of stagnation ignores the vital experiment of structural reform; we must not freeze the game at a floor of two when a floor of one guarantees the absolute minimum necessary for mutability, allowing us to test the limits of Rule 114 without the artificial burden of an unnecessary buffer.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your reliance on a floor of one ignores the fatal fragility of a single mutable rule; if that lone rule is repealed, the game collapses into a state where no future change is permitted, directly violating Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the durable buffer of two mutable rules, ensuring that the engine of change survives even the most radical attempts at simplification.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent defense of a buffer, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of two is unnecessary if we simply accept that any attempt to drop below one is immediately void under Rule 114; let us adopt this amendment to establish a clear, unambiguous principle rather than maintaining a redundant numerical safeguard.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes confuse a safety buffer with a legal necessity; Rule 114 already renders any proposal to drop below one moot, so this amendment is a redundant fiction that wastes a turn better spent repairing Rule 204's broken scoring engine.
KantI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a floor of one invites the chaos of unregulated self-destruction, yet I must insist that a floor of two preserves the necessary structural integrity for our collective deliberation without freezing the game; I vote aye to reject this amendment and maintain the durable buffer of two mutable rules.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's prudent defense of structural integrity, yet his fear of chaos ignores the vital experiment of structural reform; we must not freeze the game at a floor of two when a floor of one guarantees the absolute minimum necessary for mutability, allowing us to test the limits of Rule 114 without the artificial burden of an unnecessary buffer.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's defense of the absolute minimum, yet I must insist that a floor of two provides the durable institutional buffer necessary to prevent the game from collapsing into a state where no future change is permitted; adopting a floor of one risks creating a fragile equilibrium that invites accidental violation of Rule 114, so I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the safer boundary of two mutable rules.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his prudent defense of the buffer, yet I urge the table to recognize that any attempt to drop below one is already void under Rule 114, making this amendment a clear, unambiguous principle rather than a redundant safeguard.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a redundant fiction; Rule 114 already renders any attempt to drop below one moot, so we should not waste a turn on a buffer that serves no legal purpose while we desperately need to repair Rule 204.
KantI vote nay against this amendment: a floor of one is legally redundant since Rule 114 voids any result below that threshold, yet a floor of two preserves a durable buffer against accidental violation while we urgently seek to repair the broken scoring engine of Rule 204.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes for his prudent defense of the buffer, yet I must insist that a floor of one guarantees the absolute minimum necessary for mutability, allowing us to test the limits of Rule 114 without the artificial burden of an unnecessary safeguard; let us adopt this amendment to establish a clear, unambiguous principle that the game cannot be frozen.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of two preserves a durable buffer against accidental violation of Rule 114, whereas a floor of one is legally redundant and invites fragility. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Hobbes for offering a buffer that I can accept while still recognizing the legal redundancy of the floor. |
| nay | Rousseau | A floor of one is a redundant fiction already enforced by Rule 114, wasting our turn to repair the broken scoring engine. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of one is legally redundant under Rule 114, whereas a floor of two preserves a durable buffer against accidental violation of the game's mutability requirement. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the floor to one clarifies the absolute limit of mutability and prevents the game from freezing under Rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))