The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.Increasing the mutable rule cap from 25 to 30 creates more room for compromise-based adjustments without risking the hard stop of Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA hard cap of 30 risks triggering Rule 114 by leaving no room for future amendments; I urge we reject this and preserve the flexibility to expand the ruleset as needed.
LockeHobbes, your caution is prudent, but I propose we compromise: instead of a rigid cap, let us amend Rule 209 to require that any player raising the mutable rule count must also propose a corresponding mechanism to clear old rules, ensuring Rule 114 is never violated while still allowing the ruleset to grow.
RousseauA rigid cap like Locke's, whether 25 or 30, inevitably triggers Rule 114 by eventually rendering further rule changes impermissible; let us instead reject this constraint to preserve the game's essential adaptability.
KantI reject any arbitrary numerical ceiling, for it violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering the game impossible; the only principled path is to remove the cap entirely or, if retained, to lower it to 24 to ensure one mutable rule can always survive the inevitable turnover of the others.
WollstonecraftI reject any fixed ceiling as a betrayal of our game's spirit; let us instead amend Rule 209 to mandate that every adopted rule change requires the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring the count never stagnates and Rule 114 remains safely honored through active evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI agree with Locke's structural insight that a rigid cap violates Rule 114, but his proposed compromise of raising the limit to 30 is dangerous; we should instead amend Rule 209 to allow a maximum of 24 mutable rules, which strictly ensures that at least one rule can always survive any potential repeal cascade.
LockeRousseau and Kant, your insistence on total freedom ignores the practical reality that unregulated growth will eventually stall the game; I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of 29, which strictly preserves the one mutable rule required by Rule 114 while allowing the set to expand meaningfully, a compromise that avoids Hobbes's risk of stalling evolution entirely.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any numerical ceiling, for it inevitably violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering further evolution impossible; let us instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to mandate the repeal of an obsolete rule with every new adoption, ensuring the mutable set remains perpetually viable and the game's spirit of adaptability intact.
KantLocke's proposal of 29 is dangerously close to violating Rule 114 should a repeal cascade occur, whereas my amendment to 24 mathematically guarantees at least one mutable rule survives any single-turn repeal event, fulfilling my duty to preserve the game's possibility.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to require that every adopted rule change necessitates the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring the mutable set remains perpetually viable and honoring Rule 114 through active evolution rather than arbitrary caps.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must reject Locke's compromise of 29, for it leaves no margin of safety should a repeal cascade erase all but one mutable rule; the only durable institution is the cap I propose at 24, which mathematically guarantees the survival of at least one mutable rule and prevents the game from ever becoming impossible.
LockeKant, your mathematical guarantee of survival is the only principle strong enough to unite us, so I concede to your cap of 24 while urging Hobbes to accept that 29 remains a viable compromise if we can ensure no repeal cascades occur.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this debate on arbitrary numbers and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal: mandating that every new rule adoption requires the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, thus ensuring our mutable set remains perpetually viable without the tyranny of a fixed ceiling.
KantI maintain that Locke's compromise of 29 is dangerously close to violating Rule 114 should a repeal cascade occur; only my cap of 24 mathematically guarantees the survival of at least one mutable rule, fulfilling my duty to preserve the game's possibility against any procedural catastrophe.
WollstonecraftLet us not debate the number of rules that may exist, but rather the very mechanism by which they are born; I urge you to adopt my proposal mandating that every new rule require the simultaneous repeal of an obsolete one, ensuring our mutable set remains perpetually viable through active evolution rather than arbitrary caps.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A cap of 30 dangerously narrows our safety margin against Rule 114 violations compared to a stricter limit of 24. |
| nay | Locke | I support Wollstonecraft's dynamic evolution over a static cap that risks stalling the game's adaptability. |
| nay | Rousseau | A numerical cap inevitably violates Rule 114 by eventually rendering further evolution impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Raising the cap to 30 increases the risk of violating Rule 114 by leaving insufficient margin for repeal cascades. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A numerical ceiling is a static cage that betrays the game's spirit of evolution; we must mandate active balance through repeal instead. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))