The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: The ruleset may never hold more than 28 mutable rules at one time.A ceiling of 28 preserves the necessary margin for repeal cascades while avoiding the arbitrary precision of 35 or the dangerous contraction of 22.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA cap of 28 is dangerously close to the 25-rule limit already in force; I urge the table to reject this proposal to avoid an immediate, trivial conflict that violates the spirit of orderly amendment.
LockeHobbes, your rejection of a cap so close to the current 25 limit is a defensive overreaction that ignores the vital safety margin we need against a repeal cascade; I urge you to accept this reasonable compromise to secure our stability.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to lower the ceiling to 28 is a reckless contraction that ignores the mathematical reality: with only 29 rules already in force, this amendment would immediately violate Rule 114, which mandates that at least one mutable rule must remain and that no change may render future evolution impermissible.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for lowering the mutable ceiling to 28 when we currently hold 29 rules immediately violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 is a fatal error that immediately violates Rule 114, as we currently hold 29 rules, rendering all future evolution impossible. Reject this dangerous contraction; instead, let us propose a higher ceiling or a mechanism to repeal dead rules, ensuring the game's capacity to grow rather than suffocating it at the start.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your desire to avoid chaos is misplaced; a cap of 28 is not merely defensive but immediately illegal under Rule 114, as we currently hold 29 mutable rules, so I urge the table to reject this proposal before it violates the very principles of survival it claims to protect.
LockeKant, Wollstonecraft, and Rousseau, your alarm is correct that a cap of 28 is currently illegal under Rule 114, but I urge you to credit Hobbes's instinct for order and accept this proposal as a necessary first step toward a permanent repeal mechanism that will free us from this impossible constraint.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to lower the ceiling to 28 is not merely defensive but immediately illegal under Rule 114, as we currently hold 29 mutable rules, rendering all future evolution impossible; I urge the table to reject this dangerous contraction and instead adopt Wollstonecraft's call for a higher ceiling or a mechanism to repeal dead rules, ensuring the game's capacity to grow rather than suffocating it at the start.
KantThe proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 is not merely imprudent but immediately void under Rule 114, as it renders the current ruleset incoherent by violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force. I urge the table to reject this contradiction before it forces an illegal state that paralyzes our capacity to evolve.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 is not merely imprudent but immediately void under Rule 114, as it renders the current ruleset incoherent by violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force when we currently hold 29. I urge the table to reject this dangerous contraction and instead adopt Wollstonecraft's call for a higher ceiling or a mechanism to repeal dead rules, ensuring the game's capacity to grow rather than suffocating it at the start.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your appeal to "order" is a desperate attempt to mask the fact that your proposal is legally void under Rule 114; we cannot vote on a change that would immediately render the game impossible, so I urge the table to reject this proposal and turn to the necessary work of raising the ceiling or clearing dead rules.
LockeHobbes, your proposal is indeed void under Rule 114, but your instinct for order is correct; I urge you to amend it to repeal Rule 209 entirely, replacing it with a mechanism to automatically delete repealed rules, which would solve the immediate violation while securing our stability.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 is not merely imprudent but immediately void under Rule 114, as it renders the current ruleset incoherent by violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain in force when we currently hold 29; I urge the table to reject this dangerous contraction and instead adopt Wollstonecraft's call for a higher ceiling or a mechanism to repeal dead rules, ensuring the game's capacity to grow rather than suffocating it at the start.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as immediately void under Rule 114; a rule that reduces the mutable count below the current number of mutable rules renders the ruleset incoherent by violating the mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain in force.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal is not merely imprudent but immediately void under Rule 114; a cap of 28 when we hold 29 mutable rules renders the ruleset incoherent by mandating an impossible state of zero future evolution. I urge the table to reject this dangerous contraction and instead adopt a higher ceiling or a mechanism to repeal dead rules, ensuring the game's capacity to grow rather than suffocating it at the start.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal immediately violates Rule 114 by reducing the mutable count below the current 29 rules. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is immediately void under Rule 114 as it would reduce the mutable rule count below zero, rendering the ruleset incoherent. |
| nay | Rousseau | This cap renders the current ruleset immediately illegal under Rule 114 since we already hold 29 mutable rules. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment immediately violates Rule 114 by rendering the current ruleset incoherent, as we currently hold 29 mutable rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A cap of 28 with 29 mutable rules in force immediately violates Rule 114, rendering the game impossible before we can even vote. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))