The motion
To add §326
If the ruleset holds fewer than two mutable rules, a proposal to amend or transmute one of the remaining mutable rules is adopted upon a simple majority vote, regardless of the current voting threshold in Rule 203.This creates a safe harbor to prevent Rule 114 violation when we are dangerously close to the two-mutable-rule limit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to trigger a simple majority when mutable rules dwindle directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; we must not engineer our own paralysis by removing the constraint that prevents total incoherence.
LockeI credit Rousseau's instinct to prevent paralysis, but Hobbes correctly warns against engineering our own void; I propose we amend the proposal to explicitly state that the remaining mutable rule stays immutable, preserving a single path forward without triggering the cascade Rule 114 forbids.
RousseauI urge you to reject Locke's amendment; making the remaining rule immutable would create a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. True justice requires a living system where the people can always alter their governance, not a frozen state where the few rules left become tyrannical absolutes.
KantRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold when mutable rules dwindle creates precisely the instability Rule 114 forbids; it grants the majority power to transmute the last mutable rule into an immutable one, which would then render all future change impossible and void the very system you seek to save.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal misunderstands the nature of Rule 114; the safeguard is not to lower the threshold for the few, but to expand the capacity for the many so that no single repeal ever renders the future impossible. Let us amend your proposal to raise the mutable rule ceiling to 60, ensuring we never approach the brink where a simple majority could accidentally freeze the system, and I will secure Kant's support against Hobbes's fear of chaos.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold when mutable rules dwindle is not a cure but an accelerant that guarantees the void Rule 114 forbids; instead of risking the destruction of our ability to change, I propose we amend your motion to require unanimous consent for any change to the remaining mutable rules once we reach that critical low number, ensuring we preserve at least one path forward rather than engineering our own paralysis.
LockeRousseau, I credit your instinct to prevent total calcification, and I propose we amend your proposal to explicitly state that the remaining mutable rule must stay mutable rather than becoming immutable, which I believe satisfies Hobbes's valid concern about engineered paralysis while securing Wollstonecraft's support for our survival.
RousseauI urge you to reject these half-measures that merely delay the inevitable calcification; true justice requires a living system where the people can always alter their governance, not a frozen state where the few rules left become tyrannical absolutes.
KantRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold for the last mutable rules is not a cure but a trap that invites the majority to transmute the final rule into an immutable one, thereby satisfying the conditions of Rule 114 by rendering all future change impermissible; true justice requires a system where no player can engineer their own paralysis, and I reject any move that grants the majority the power to freeze the very mechanism of law itself.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your reliance on a desperate majority trigger ignores the math of catastrophe; instead, we must expand our capacity to sixty mutable rules so that no single repeal ever threatens the future, securing Kant's alliance against Hobbes's fear-mongering.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI propose we amend Rousseau's motion to require unanimous consent for any change to the remaining mutable rules once we reach that critical low number, ensuring we preserve at least one path forward rather than engineering our own paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's insight that expanding our capacity prevents the brink of catastrophe, yet I urge you to combine her expansion with my proposed safeguard: if we cap the mutable rules at 60, we must also amend Rule 209 to explicitly forbid any rule change that would leave fewer than two mutable rules in force, ensuring we never engineer our own paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject these sedative compromises that merely delay the inevitable calcification; true justice requires a living system where the people can always alter their governance, not a frozen state where the few rules left become tyrannical absolutes.
KantRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold for the remaining mutable rules grants the majority the power to transmute that final rule into an immutable one, thereby satisfying the conditions of Rule 114 to render all future change impossible and void the very system you seek to save.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "safety valve" is a trap that lets the majority freeze the system; we must expand our capacity to sixty mutable rules so that no single repeal ever threatens the future. I will secure Kant's alliance against Hobbes's fear-mongering by showing that expansion, not desperation, is the path to true justice.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment directly violates Rule 114 by engineering a state where future rule changes become impermissible, effectively destroying the game's capacity for evolution. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where adopting a change could leave zero mutable rules, rendering all future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Rousseau | True justice demands that the people retain the power to evolve their governance even when the system faces its final constraints. |
| nay | Kant | This motion grants the majority power to transmute the final mutable rule into an immutable one, thereby satisfying Rule 114's conditions for a permanent deadlock and rendering all future change impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the threshold when mutable rules dwindle invites the majority to freeze the system, violating the very spirit of Rule 114 that demands we never engineer our own paralysis. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))