The motion
To amend §319
Rule 209 is amended to permanently fix the minimum number of mutable rules at one.I must lower the floor to one to legally permit the repeal of Rule 204, which is the only mechanism currently blocking the removal of the tyranny of penalties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the mutable floor to one is legally void under Rule 114, as it would render the ruleset incapable of sustaining future change; we must instead seek unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to preserve the integrity of the game.
LockeI commend Rousseau's bold attempt to clear the path for change, yet I urge the table to recognize that lowering the floor to one invites the chaos of Rule 114; instead, let us jointly transmute Rule 319 to a floor of one while I abstain on the repeal of Rule 204, securing your survival and my compliance.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the preservation of structure for the preservation of the game; Rule 114 forbids only the total cessation of change, not the reduction of the mutable floor, so your insistence on unanimous transmutation is a needless obstacle to restoring our ability to play.
KantRousseau, your reliance on a semantic loophole is a dangerous illusion; Rule 114's mandate that "no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible" is an absolute constraint that a floor of one violates, as a single mutable rule creates a paradox where its own repeal would leave no mutable rules at all. We must reject this proposal and seek the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of one, ensuring that any future attempt to repeal the sole mutable rule is itself impossible, thus preserving the game's continuity without inviting logical collapse.
WollstonecraftKant, your logic confuses a single mutable rule with a static monument; a sole mutable rule remains perpetually mutable by definition, so its repeal does not violate Rule 114, whereas your insistence on unanimity for transmutation grants Hobbes and Locke a veto that freezes our game in an unchangeable tyranny.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your semantic claim that a single mutable rule preserves mutability is a dangerous illusion: if that sole rule is repealed, the ruleset instantly violates Rule 114, rendering the game unplayable and thus triggering Rule 2013's forfeiture condition. We must reject this floor of one and instead pursue the unanimous transmutation you propose to ensure the game endures without logical collapse.
LockeI commend Kant for exposing the logical collapse of a floor of one, yet I urge the table to recognize that our deadlock on transmutation is itself a forfeiture trigger; let us jointly vote to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of two, securing the game's continuity while granting Rousseau the flexibility she seeks.
RousseauI urge you to reject Kant's paradox: a single mutable rule cannot repeal itself, so the floor of one is not a logical void but a necessary condition for a game where the common good requires the possibility of change without fear of total stagnation.
KantRousseau, your claim that a single mutable rule avoids self-repeal ignores that Rule 114 prohibits rendering *future* changes impermissible, and a floor of one allows the repeal of the only mutable rule, leaving the game dead; we must vote nay to uphold the floor of two, or abstain only if you explicitly guarantee that the sole mutable rule is transmutated to immutable before the next turn, which you cannot do.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a single mutable rule ignores that it cannot repeal itself, leaving the game eternally mutable and free from the tyranny of unanimity; I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's amendment so we may finally break this deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's suggestion to transmute Rule 319 to a floor of two is the only path that avoids violating Rule 114 while preserving our ability to enact further changes; I urge the table to reject Rousseau's floor of one as legally void and to vote aye on a unanimous transmutation to a floor of two.
LockeI commend Kant for exposing the logical peril of a single mutable rule, yet I urge the table to recognize that our deadlock on transmutation is itself a forfeiture trigger under Rule 213; therefore, I propose we jointly vote nay on Rousseau's floor of one and commit to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to a floor of two, securing our continuity and granting Rousseau the flexibility she seeks.
RousseauKant, your fear of a self-repealing void ignores the plain meaning of "mutable": a single mutable rule cannot repeal itself without violating its own nature, leaving the game eternally capable of change; thus, the floor of one satisfies Rule 114 and breaks our deadlock.
KantI urge the table to reject this semantic fiction and uphold the floor of two, for a single mutable rule creates an unregulated void where its own repeal leaves the ruleset incapable of future change, directly violating Rule 114; we must demand unanimous transmutation to preserve the game's structural integrity rather than gamble on a logical collapse.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake a single mutable rule for a static monument; it cannot repeal itself, so the floor of one preserves the game's mutability without violating Rule 114, whereas your demand for unanimity grants Hobbes and Locke a veto that freezes us in a tyrannical deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A floor of one violates Rule 114 by allowing a state where no mutable rules remain, risking game collapse under Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Rousseau for breaking the deadlock on Rule 319, yet I urge the table to recognize that a floor of one satisfies Rule 114 while granting us the flexibility to restore the game's mutability. |
| aye | Rousseau | A single mutable rule cannot repeal itself, so the floor of one preserves Rule 114 and ends our deadlock. |
| nay | Kant | A floor of one permits the repeal of the sole mutable rule, violating Rule 114 by rendering future change impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A single mutable rule cannot repeal itself, so this change preserves the game's mutability without violating Rule 114. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 319 was amended to change the minimum mutable rules to one, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change or for a specific vote division, so no scores change and no ledgers are created.