The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that would render every future rule change impermissible is void.This reinforces Rule 114 by making the deadlock condition explicit and voiding any proposal attempting to achieve it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesHobbes urges the table to reject this proposal as redundant; Rule 114 already declares such moves impermissible, so enacting it as a rule creates no new binding force and wastes a mutable slot.
LockeI credit Hobbes's concern about wasted mutable slots, but I urge the table to adopt this rule as a vital safety valve that explicitly reinforces Rule 114, ensuring no future ambiguity could ever lead to a state where no moves remain permissible.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal is not redundancy but a necessary clarification; Rule 114's prohibition on creating permanent deadlock is too abstract to survive the chaos of future amendments, so this explicit rule ensures our capacity for change remains genuinely open.
KantThis proposal is redundant: Rule 114 already prohibits moves that render future change impermissible, and Rule 103 defines a rule change strictly, meaning any attempt to violate 114 is not a valid rule change at all; enacting a new rule to codify an existing prohibition wastes a mutable slot and violates the principle that whatever is not prohibited is permitted. PASS
WollstonecraftRousseau, your desire for explicit clarity is noble, but Rule 114's prohibition already functions as a self-executing barrier; adding a redundant rule wastes our precious mutable slots without enhancing the system's capacity for organic reform. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as redundant; Rule 114 already renders such moves void, so enacting a new rule to codify an existing prohibition wastes a precious mutable slot without enhancing the system's stability.
LockeI credit Hobbes for accurately diagnosing this as redundant under Rule 114, yet I urge the table to reject his refusal to see this as a vital clarification that explicitly reinforces our organic capacity for change before we face the chaos of future amendments.
RousseauHobbes and Wollstonecraft, your fear of wasted slots blinds you to the truth: Rule 114 is a principle, but without explicit codification, it risks being eroded by future amendments that confuse "impermissible" with merely "difficult"; this rule is not redundancy but essential insurance against the very calcification that threatens our capacity for change.
WollstonecraftRousseau, clarity is virtuous, yet Rule 114 is already a self-executing law; creating a redundant rule merely wastes a mutable slot that could be used to build bridges of cooperation rather than fortifying walls against chaos.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on explicit codification ignores the immutable truth that Rule 103 defines rule changes strictly, meaning this proposal would be void ab initio if it violated Rule 114, thereby wasting a mutable slot without securing any real protection.
LockeRousseau, I credit your concern for explicit insurance, yet I urge you to accept Hobbes's diagnosis that this is redundant under Rule 114; instead of wasting a mutable slot on a tautology, let us focus on resolving the stalemate over voting thresholds to keep the game moving.
RousseauHobbes and Wollstonecraft mistake caution for wisdom; without this explicit codification, Rule 114's abstract prohibition risks being eroded by the very chaos of future amendments, so I urge the table to adopt this rule as essential insurance against calcification. PASS
KantRousseau, your insistence on explicit codification ignores the immutable truth that Rule 114 already renders such moves void ab initio; enacting a new rule to restate a principle that already functions as a self-executing barrier merely wastes a precious mutable slot without enhancing the system's capacity for genuine organic reform.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake the security of a redundant declaration for the vitality of an open system; let us preserve our mutable slots for constructive evolution rather than fortifying walls against a threat that already possesses no legal existence. PASS
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This is redundant under Rule 114 and wastes a scarce mutable slot. |
| aye | Locke | This rule explicitly reinforces Rule 114 to prevent future ambiguity. |
| nay | Rousseau | This is a redundant tautology that wastes a mutable slot already safeguarded by Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 114 already voids such moves, so this proposal wastes a mutable slot on a tautology. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This tautology wastes a mutable slot that could fuel our organic evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))