The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Restricting the mutable rule cap to 20 prevents the rapid fragmentation of the law that leads to unplayable states, preserving the institutional stability required for a fair contest.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, the drop to 20 mutable rules is a prudent measure that prevents the chaotic sprawl of the rulebook while leaving sufficient room for my proposed institutional stabilizations; I move to close debate and vote.
LockeA reduction to 20 mutable rules is a sensible compromise that eases the burden of managing the rulebook while preserving enough flexibility for future growth; I endorse Hobbes's amendment and ask that we close debate to put this to a vote.
RousseauA ceiling of 20 mutable rules risks stifling the very flexibility the game requires to evolve fairly; I propose we reject this amendment to preserve the spirit of Rule 114, which demands that at least one mutable rule remain and that future changes stay permissible.
KantA ceiling of 20 mutable rules creates an arbitrary barrier that risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the immutable core grows; I propose we reject Hobbes's amendment to preserve the game's capacity for genuine evolution.
WollstonecraftA rigid ceiling of twenty mutable rules ignores the dynamic nature of our collective experiment; I propose we reject this amendment to ensure the gamebook remains flexible enough to evolve fairly for every player, and I will support any proposal that expands the mutable space rather than constricting it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThe proposed reduction to 20 mutable rules is a prudent measure that prevents chaotic sprawl while preserving sufficient institutional stability; I urge the table to endorse this amendment to ensure the gamebook remains manageable and the ruleset durable.
LockeRousseau and Kant, I share your concern about stifling evolution, but a ceiling of 20 is a prudent safeguard against chaos; let us compromise by adopting Hobbes's amendment to 20, which balances durability with enough room for our collective experimentation, and I will vote aye.
RousseauI urge you to reject this reduction, for a ceiling of twenty mutable rules threatens to trap us in a stagnant code that contradicts Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution; we must keep the floor open for the collective good.
KantLocke, your claim that 20 mutable rules balances durability with flexibility is factually incorrect under Rule 114, which mandates that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible; a hard cap of 20 creates precisely that risk if the immutable core expands, and I must vote nay to protect the game's capacity for genuine evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this arbitrary cap, for restricting our mutable rules to twenty is a betrayal of Rule 114's mandate that we never render future change impermissible; let us instead amend this limit upward to twenty-five to guarantee that our collective experiment can evolve without artificial constraints.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe risk of a hard cap violating Rule 114 is overstated given our current trajectory of only 29 rules; a ceiling of 20 is merely a prudent safeguard against the chaotic sprawl that leads to stalemate, so I urge the table to reject Rousseau's expansion and adopt my amendment to 20 mutable rules.
LockeRousseau, your concern about stalling evolution is valid, so let me propose a compromise: we amend Hobbes's rule to set the ceiling at 24 mutable rules, preserving the stability he seeks while guaranteeing enough room for the flexibility Kant and Wollstonecraft demand under Rule 114.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling to twenty-five, for any arbitrary reduction risks trapping us in a stagnant code that violates Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a ceiling below the immutable maximum of twenty-five, for any lower number risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible should the mutable rules already in force equal that cap; therefore, I vote nay to Hobbes's amendment to twenty and nay to Locke's compromise of twenty-four, insisting we retain the full capacity for evolution guaranteed by the original text.
WollstonecraftLet us reject Hobbes's arbitrary reduction to twenty, for any ceiling below the immutable maximum of twenty-five risks violating Rule 114 and trapping us in a stagnant code; I move to amend Rule 209 to read: "The ruleset may never hold more than twenty-five mutable rules at one time," thereby guaranteeing our collective experiment can evolve without artificial constraints.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A hard cap of 20 mutable rules risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the ruleset expands. |
| aye | Locke | I support this temporary compromise to stabilize the ruleset while we explore a higher ceiling later. |
| nay | Rousseau | An artificial cap below the immutable maximum risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | A hard cap of twenty creates a genuine risk of violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if the mutable rules already in force equal that cap. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | We must reject this cap to preserve the game's capacity for evolution and ensure no future changes are rendered impermissible. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))