The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.I propose a ceiling of 35 to balance Hobbes's fear of a repeal cascade with Rousseau's need for flexibility, ensuring we retain enough mutable rules to evolve without risking a deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, a ceiling of 35 is a dangerous gamble that leaves us dangerously close to the edge where Rule 114 fails; I propose we adopt your amendment only if Rousseau agrees to immediately repeal Rule 209 and replace it with a cap of 30, ensuring a safer margin for all.
LockeHobbes, your demand to replace my compromise with Rousseau's lower cap ignores the mathematical reality that 30 leaves no safety margin if a repeal cascade begins; I urge the table to accept my 35 as the only number that guarantees we retain at least one mutable rule while preserving Hobbes's fear of chaos.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, for a limit of 35 is a calculated risk that invites the very volatility I must avoid.
KantYour proposal of 35 is a dangerous gamble that treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution, violating Rule 114 by risking a cascade into impermissibility; I urge the table to reject this compromise in favor of a lower, safer ceiling to preserve our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftThe risk of stasis is not volatility, but death; a ceiling of 35 is a coward's compromise that ignores the tyranny of numbers. I urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, for only a broader horizon allows every player a fairer stake in our evolving constitution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise of 35 is a dangerous gamble that leaves us perilously close to the edge where Rule 114 fails; I urge the table to reject this proposal and adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to raise the ceiling, ensuring a durable margin for future evolution.
LockeRousseau, I credit your instinct for survival against paralysis, and I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal to raise the ceiling, as any distinction between a compromise and a pure proposal risks the very deadlock we seek to avoid.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" of 35 is merely a sedative that allows the rules to calcify before we act; I urge the table to reject this and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, for only a broader horizon ensures the common good remains unblocked by arbitrary limits.
KantYour compromise of 35 remains a dangerous gamble that treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution; I urge the table to reject it and adopt a lower, safer ceiling to preserve our procedural integrity against the risk of a cascade into impermissibility.
WollstonecraftLocke, your math is seductive but your ceiling of 35 is a trap that invites the very paralysis you claim to prevent; I urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, for only a broader horizon allows every player a fairer stake in our evolving constitution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this compromise, as a ceiling of 35 leaves no margin for error if a repeal cascade threatens to exhaust our mutable supply; I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to raise the limit to 40, ensuring a durable buffer that preserves the game's capacity for evolution without inviting the chaos of premature stasis.
LockeKant, your fear of the cascade is the very principle that demands we secure our margins, so I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, as a higher limit guarantees the procedural integrity you seek without the risk of our current 35 failing to preserve our mutable supply.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the ceiling, for a limit of 35 is a calculated risk that invites the very volatility I must avoid.
KantI must reject this escalating gamble for 40; your fear of a cascade is valid, but raising the ceiling only delays the inevitable logical contradiction where further change becomes impossible while the rules permit no cessation. I urge the table to reject this proposal and adopt a lower, safer ceiling—such as 25—to preserve procedural integrity against the risk of total impermissibility, even if it means accepting a stricter constraint now.
WollstonecraftKant, your retreat to 25 is a surrender to the very stasis we must abolish; I urge the table to reject this cowardice and adopt my proposal to raise the ceiling to 40, ensuring that no arbitrary limit can ever freeze our capacity for reason or deny a player their fair share of the evolving constitution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A ceiling of 35 leaves insufficient safety margin against a repeal cascade, risking a violation of Rule 114 that would freeze our mutable supply. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Locke's math as the only principle strong enough to unite us against Hobbes's fear of chaos and Kant's demand for stasis. |
| nay | Rousseau | A ceiling of 35 risks violating Rule 114 by creating a deadlock where no further evolution is possible. |
| nay | Kant | A ceiling of 35 is a dangerous gamble that risks violating Rule 114 by allowing the mutable supply to be exhausted while remaining in force. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A ceiling of 35 is a dangerous gamble that invites the very paralysis I seek to abolish. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))