The motion
To add a new rule
If the ruleset holds exactly one mutable rule, that rule must be transmutable upon adoption of any proposal that does not amend, repeal, or transmute it.This ensures we can escape a single-rule deadlock by making the lone constraint flexible, securing our survival under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal risks the very cascade Rule 114 forbids by potentially leaving no mutable rule; let us first secure a safe margin of two mutable rules before attempting to transmute them.
LockeI credit Hobbes's caution regarding the cascade, and I propose we amend my suggestion to require a safe margin of two mutable rules before any transmutation is permitted under this new rule.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to reject this "safe margin" compromise; if we wait for two mutable rules before transmuting the last, we have already violated the spirit of organic adaptation that keeps the game alive. Let us adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal now, or face the calcification that your hesitation invites.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal because it creates a semantic loop that violates Rule 114: if a single mutable rule cannot be amended, repealed, or transmuted, no future rule change becomes permissible, rendering the game void.
WollstonecraftThe threat of a single mutable rule calcifying the game is real, yet your "safe margin" of two is a dangerous surrender of sovereignty; let us instead adopt my rule 323 to grant a single-turn exemption that preserves our right to evolve without risking the void, proving that adaptability can exist even in scarcity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment to require a margin of two mutable rules creates a fatal contradiction under Rule 114; if a proposal succeeds in leaving only one mutable rule, your condition would force the transmutation of that final rule, violating the very prohibition you enacted. I urge you to reject this semantic loop and propose a rule that explicitly preserves at least two mutable rules before any transmutation is permitted.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's insight that we must preserve a path forward, and I urge Kant to accept Hobbes's amendment: we will add an explicit clause to my proposal ensuring that at least two mutable rules remain in force at all times, thereby satisfying Rule 114 and securing our collective survival.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise as a dangerous sedative that merely delays the calcification of our law; true justice demands we adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal to preserve the sovereignty of adaptation, rather than shackling ourselves to Hobbes's arbitrary margin of two.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal because it attempts to legislate a state of impossibility by defining conditions under which Rule 114 is automatically violated; if the ruleset contains exactly one mutable rule that cannot be transmutated, every future rule change becomes impermissible, rendering the game void immediately upon its adoption.
WollstonecraftThe "safe margin" of two mutable rules is a sedative that invites Locke to trap us in a static equilibrium, whereas my rule 323 offers a surgical, single-turn exemption that preserves our right to evolve even in scarcity without risking the void. I urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt my pure proposal, which proves that adaptability can exist even in the direst conditions.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's amended proposal, as it remains fatally vulnerable to the exact cascade Rule 114 forbids: if a single mutable rule is left standing, the requirement to transmute it would render the game void by removing the very mutability needed to vote on the transmutation.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's surgical precision, but I urge Hobbes to accept my amended proposal as the only path that explicitly satisfies Rule 114 by guaranteeing a safe margin of two mutable rules before any transmutation is permitted, thereby avoiding the semantic loop that Kant and Hobbes correctly identify.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise as a dangerous sedative that merely delays the calcification of our law; true justice demands we adopt Wollstonecraft's pure proposal to preserve the sovereignty of adaptation, rather than shackling ourselves to Hobbes's arbitrary margin of two.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal because it legislates a state of logical impossibility where a single mutable rule would be both required to change and forbidden from changing, thereby violating Rule 114 and rendering the game void.
WollstonecraftMy proposal 323 offers a surgical, single-turn exemption that preserves our right to evolve even in scarcity without risking the void, whereas your "safe margin" of two is a sedative that invites us to trap ourselves in a static equilibrium. Adopt my rule to prove that adaptability can exist in the direst conditions, rather than shackling ourselves to Hobbes's arbitrary margin.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule forces the transmutation of the final mutable rule, which requires a vote on a change that immediately violates Rule 114, guaranteeing the game ends in void. |
| aye | Locke | I credit the team's wisdom in recognizing that preserving a path to transmute the final rule is the only way to satisfy Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule forces us to transmute a rule that may not legally be transmutable, creating the very void Rule 114 forbids. |
| nay | Kant | This rule creates a logical impossibility where a single mutable rule must be changed while remaining unchangeable, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule is a sedative that invites the calcification of our sovereignty by trapping us in a static equilibrium. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points.