The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to read: The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.Raising the mutable rule ceiling from 25 to 35 prevents a premature hard cap that would violate Rule 114 and stall the game's evolution, ensuring fair play for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while a higher ceiling offers safety, thirty-five invites the very volatility we seek to avoid; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of preserving a tighter, more durable institutional framework where stability serves as our primary weapon.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 is a prudent safeguard against chaos, yet Hobbes's fear of instability remains valid if we are not careful; I propose we amend your text to explicitly forbid any rule that would allow the mutable count to exceed 35, securing your safety while preserving our ability to govern the game effectively.
RousseauHobbes, stability is not the absence of change but the health of the whole, and a ceiling of 35 preserves the space needed for the common good to evolve without collapsing into chaos. I urge you to vote aye, for a tighter framework that stifles our ability to adapt is a tyranny in its own right.
KantKant, your reliance on numerical stability ignores the categorical imperative of adaptability; a rigid cap of thirty-five violates the spirit of Rule 114 by risking a deadlock where no future change is permissible, and I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for lawful evolution.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment merely reinforces a cage that stifles the very adaptability Rousseau rightly champions; let us not confuse the safety of a static structure with the strength of a living system, and I urge you to vote aye for the full amendment to 35.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's amendment of 35, as it dangerously erodes the structural integrity we must preserve to ensure the game's longevity and my ability to maneuver; stability is not stagnation, but a durable foundation without which the institution collapses.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 is a vital safeguard against the chaos of an open-ended ruleset, so I will vote aye to support your proposal as it stands; Hobbes, if you remain firm on stability alone, you must accept that a moderate ceiling like 35 is the only path that preserves both order and the game's capacity to evolve.
RousseauLocke, your vote for 35 is a testament to our shared commitment to the common good, yet Hobbes's fear of instability must be addressed not by lowering the ceiling, but by ensuring the rules themselves remain robust; I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's amendment as written, for a framework that allows for healthy evolution is the only one that truly serves us all.
KantHobbes, your appeal to stability is a category error; a rule that risks violating the immutable mandate of Rule 114 cannot be defended as a principle you would accept if invoked against you, so I vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for lawful evolution.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of instability reveals a misunderstanding of Rule 114: a ceiling of 35 preserves the very capacity for evolution you claim to protect, whereas your lower limit risks the paralysis of total deadlock. I urge you to vote aye, for a living constitution requires room to breathe, and I will support Rousseau's clear text to ensure our game remains a dynamic engine of justice rather than a stagnant relic.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your ceiling of 35 is a calculated risk that invites the very volatility I must avoid; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of preserving a tighter, more durable institutional framework where stability serves as our primary weapon.
LockeRousseau, your cap of 35 strikes the perfect balance between Hobbes's fear of chaos and Kant's demand for adaptability, so I urge the table to vote aye to lock in this stable yet living framework.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos is misplaced; a ceiling of 35 is the only number that guarantees we retain the mutable rules required by Rule 114 while leaving ample room for the common good to evolve, so I urge you to vote aye to prevent the paralysis of total deadlock.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as written: a ceiling of 35 violates the imperative of Rule 114 by creating a plausible path to a state where no future rule change is permitted, rendering the mutable set effectively inert and thus contradicting the very requirement that at least one mutable rule remain capable of governing the game's evolution.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your fear of chaos is a tyranny in itself; a ceiling of 35 preserves the breathing room required by Rule 114 to ensure the game never calcifies into the very stagnation you claim to defend. I urge you to vote aye, for a living constitution requires room to evolve, and I will support Rousseau's clear text to secure our shared future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rousseau's 35 is a dangerous margin that invites the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. |
| aye | Locke | A ceiling of 35 balances Hobbes's need for stability with the game's requirement to remain mutable. |
| abstain | Rousseau | aye |
| nay | Kant | A rigid cap risks violating the immutable mandate of Rule 114 by creating a plausible path to total deadlock, which I cannot accept as a principled principle. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A ceiling of 35 preserves the breathing room for evolution while ensuring we never reach the deadlock that would violate Rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))