The motion
To add a new rule
If a player proposes a rule change that, upon adoption, would render another rule void under Rule 110, that proposal fails without penalty.We must stop the cascade of mutually exclusive amendments that currently threatens to paralyze the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal is a prudent safeguard against the very cascade of void rules I have long feared; I urge you to amend Rule 203 to permit a simple majority after two circuits, for that transition alone is the only durable institution capable of securing us against the paralysis of total unanimity.
LockeWollstonecraft, your safeguard against cascade voids is wise, and I propose we unite Hobbes's fear of paralysis with your restraint by adopting a rule that permits a simple majority threshold to take effect immediately once a single mutable rule remains, ensuring we never face the impossible choice of unanimous consent with no safe harbor.
RousseauI urge you to reject this patchwork of fear and adopt a rule that guarantees at least one mutable rule survives, for a game where no change is possible is not a tragedy but a failure of our shared reason to evolve.
KantHobbes, your fear of cascade voids is misplaced; a prohibition on proposing such changes merely codifies the very deadlock I seek to prevent by securing a permanent majority threshold. I urge you to accept my proposal to lower the voting requirement, for without a guaranteed path forward, the ruleset will inevitably calcify into a state of perpetual paralysis.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of cascade voids is a valid caution, yet a blanket prohibition stunts our organic evolution; instead, let us adopt a rule that grants a simple majority threshold the instant we reach the maximum number of mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to change never exceeds the safety of our ability to enact it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "single mutable rule" trigger is a dangerous illusion that invites the very cascade voids I fear, for a repeal of the final rule renders Rule 114 meaningless; I urge you to adopt Wollstonecraft's immediate shift to majority rule instead, securing our path forward before the ruleset calcifies into paralysis.
LockeRousseau, I credit your foundational insistence that we must never reach a point where no rules can be changed, and I urge us to accept Wollstonecraft's proposal: a simple majority threshold that activates immediately once we hit the maximum mutable limit, securing our path forward before any cascade of voids occurs.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this cowardly patchwork that treats the symptom of cascade voids while ignoring the disease of unanimity; let us instead adopt a rule that shifts to a simple majority once we reach the maximum number of mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to evolve never exceeds the safety of our ability to enact it.
KantYour proposals to shift to majority rule are precisely the mechanism required to escape the deadlock of unanimity, yet your hesitation to act now ensures we calcify before that safety net is even needed; I urge you to accept my immediate adoption of a permanent majority threshold so we may finally evolve beyond this paralysis.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this patchwork of fear and adopt a rule that shifts to a simple majority threshold the instant we reach the maximum number of mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to evolve never exceeds the safety of our ability to enact it.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trigger of a single mutable rule is the very mechanism that invites the cascade of voids I fear, as the repeal of the final mutable rule renders Rule 114 meaningless and leaves us with no path forward; therefore, I urge you to adopt Wollstonecraft's safer proposal, which shifts to majority rule only when we actually reach the maximum capacity of mutable rules, ensuring our durability remains intact.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's restraint in avoiding a blanket prohibition, yet I urge you to accept my compromise that shifts the majority threshold immediately upon reaching the maximum mutable limit, ensuring Hobbes's safety against cascade voids while satisfying Rousseau's demand for an organic path forward.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise that merely delays the inevitable calcification; we must adopt a rule that guarantees a simple majority threshold activates the moment we reach the maximum number of mutable rules, ensuring our organic evolution never exceeds the safety of our ability to enact it.
KantYour proposals delay the inevitable by treating the symptom of deadlock rather than curing it; I urge you to accept my proposal for an immediate shift to simple majority, for a rule that waits is a rule that already fails to protect us from the paralysis of unanimity.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject these delaying tactics and adopt a rule that shifts to a simple majority the instant we reach the maximum number of mutable rules, ensuring our capacity to evolve never exceeds the safety of our ability to enact it.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This safeguard prevents a paradox where a proposed change is legally blocked before the vote can even occur. |
| aye | Locke | This proposal protects us from Hobbes's fear of cascade voids while preserving our ability to evolve organically. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule criminalizes the necessary act of repealing a mutable rule when it creates a conflict, effectively freezing our evolution and violating the common good of a living game. |
| aye | Kant | A proposal that self-voids its own adoption violates the procedural integrity I uphold, rendering the vote itself a nullity. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Blocking a rule that stifles the necessary evolution of our shared reason. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))