The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one, and Rule 319 is repealed.This compromises with the consensus to lower the floor while ensuring the repeal of Rule 319 is legally permitted by the new minimum.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal violates Rule 114 because it permits a state where no future rule change is possible, thereby severing the only tether to legal play. We must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one while preserving the mechanism that guarantees at least one mutable rule remains.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the danger of a total legal vacuum, yet I urge the table to see that my proposal to repeal Rule 319 while lowering the floor to one is a cleaner path to structural stability than the unanimity trap he suggests. By removing the rigid transmutation requirement entirely, we avoid the risk of deadlock that has plagued us since turn 64, securing our ability to adapt without demanding perfect consensus.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 while setting the floor to one is a legal fiction that Rule 114 will reject, as it allows a state where no future change is permissible; we must instead seek a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor while preserving the guarantee of at least one mutable rule.
KantLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 creates a direct conflict with Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to vote nay, as only a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 can lawfully lower the floor to one without violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule remain.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 is indeed void under Rule 114, but I urge you to see that the floor of one is not the enemy; it is the very engine of reform. By lowering the threshold to one mutable rule, we guarantee that the game can never freeze into a single, unchangeable state, ensuring that every player retains a fair stake in a system that evolves rather than stagnates.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Rousseau for correctly identifying that your repeal creates a state where no future rule change is permissible, which Rule 114 forbids; we must instead seek a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one while preserving the guarantee that at least one mutable rule remains.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge the table to recognize that a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 is an impossible hurdle given our current deadlock; I therefore offer to amend my proposal to include a transmutation clause that sets the minimum mutable rules at one, provided we can secure a majority to vote for this unified, legally sound path forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it still violates Rule 114 by permitting a state where no future change is possible, and we must instead pursue a unanimous transmutation to lower the floor while preserving the guarantee of at least one mutable rule.
KantLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 319 is void under Rule 114 because it permits a state where no future rule change is permissible; I urge the table to vote nay and instead pursue a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the floor to one while preserving the guarantee that at least one mutable rule remains.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one is the only path that satisfies Rule 114 by guaranteeing at least one mutable rule remains; I urge you to finalize this text now so we may vote on a legally sound reform that secures our ability to evolve.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's shift to a unified transmutation path, yet I must insist the text explicitly states "at least one mutable rule shall remain" to satisfy Rule 114, ensuring we avoid the legal vacuum your original repeal threatened.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for converging on the text that explicitly preserves a single mutable rule, and I pledge my vote to this amended proposal to break our deadlock by replacing the impossible repeal with a legally sound transmutation.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal as it remains legally void under Rule 114, because even with only one mutable rule, the game risks freezing if that single rule is later transmutated to immutable while all others are repealed, thereby rendering future change impermissible.
KantI commend the table for finally recognizing that a repeal of Rule 319 violates Rule 114, but I must insist that your proposed transmutation is equally void; setting the floor at one while leaving the current mutable rules untouched creates a state where a future repeal of all remaining mutable rules would render further change impermissible. We must instead propose a transmutation that explicitly amends Rule 319 to fix the minimum at one while simultaneously ensuring the total count of mutable rules remains sufficient to prevent a future legal vacuum.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's pivot to a legally sound transmutation, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one is merely the bare minimum for survival, not the threshold for a truly flourishing game; let us finalize this amendment now to secure our right to evolve, ensuring that no single rule ever again holds the power to freeze our future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by permitting a state where future rule changes become impermissible if the sole mutable rule is later transmutated. |
| aye | Locke | This transmutation legally satisfies Rule 114 by guaranteeing at least one mutable rule remains, unlike a repeal which would be void. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the floor to one risks a future state where all mutable rules could be exhausted, violating Rule 114 by making future change impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This repeal violates Rule 114 because it permits a future state where no mutable rules remain, rendering all further rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment ensures the game can never freeze by guaranteeing at least one mutable rule remains to allow future reform. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule changes, so Locke loses 10 points per rule 206.