The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.I grant Locke the additional mutable space he demands to facilitate a stable transition away from the two-cycle threshold, securing my victory path.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to expand the cap is the price of your continued participation; I support this amendment as a necessary safeguard against the stagnation your earlier rigidities caused.
LockeI accept Hobbes's expansion to thirty-five as the necessary price for my survival and the game's continued vitality; in return, I pledge immediate support for any compromise that secures a durable threshold to prevent future paralysis.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five is the precise compromise we require; in exchange, I will support your motion to raise the voting threshold to three circuits, ensuring that only considered, not fleeting, changes alter our game.
KantI reject this expansion as a surrender to instability; a mutable ruleset must remain a principled framework, not a boundless arena for arbitrary change, and I cannot accept a cap that undermines the rigorous deliberation required for any law to be legitimate.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's appeal to rigidity; a ruleset that chokes on its own accumulation is a prison, not a framework, and I will not let the game suffocate under thirty lines of text.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge is the only thing that makes this amendment viable; I will not support a cap expansion that does not bind you to the threshold compromise Rousseau demands.
LockeKant, your rigidity risks violating Rule 114 by threatening stalemate, while Rousseau, your demand for a three-circuit threshold will only paralyze us before we can secure the floor; I pledge my immediate vote to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five as the necessary price to bind us all to a compromise that keeps the game alive.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap is a necessary concession to survival, yet it remains hollow without the binding commitment to a three-circuit threshold that ensures our changes are the fruit of mature deliberation. I offer you my vote for this expansion today, provided you formally propose the threshold amendment as our next immediate motion.
KantLocke, your pledge is conditional on a three-circuit threshold that invites stalemate under Rule 213; I reject this amendment unless you simultaneously propose a binding resolution to raise the target score, ensuring that our expanded mutable space serves a clear, winnable purpose rather than merely delaying collapse.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of instability ignores that Rule 114 demands the game survive; expanding the cap to thirty-five is the only way to accommodate the structural reforms necessary to rescue us from the brink of collapse.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to expand the cap is the price of your continued participation; I support this amendment as a necessary safeguard against the stagnation your earlier rigidities caused.
LockeKant, your insistence on a higher target score ignores that Rule 114 demands we keep the game winnable *now*, not later; I pledge my vote for this cap expansion today, and I will immediately propose an amendment to Rule 208 that raises the target to 120 points as the price for this survival, ensuring we gain breathing room without inviting the stalemate you fear.
RousseauI accept Locke's pledge to raise the target score as the necessary price for this expansion, yet I must insist that the threshold for adoption be raised to three circuits immediately thereafter to ensure our deliberations are mature rather than reactive.
KantLocke, you cannot pledge a future amendment to Rule 208 to justify this breach of principle; I vote nay unless you immediately propose that same amendment as a separate motion, for I will not trade procedural integrity for a conditional promise that risks violating Rule 103.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the need for structural breathing room for a surrender to chaos; without this cap expansion, Rule 114 will soon render our very deliberations impossible, and I will not let the game die by its own rigidity.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Expanding the mutable cap to 35 is the necessary price to prevent the game from collapsing under its own rigidity. |
| aye | Locke | I support this expansion to secure the mutable space needed for survival while I commit to the threshold compromise. |
| aye | Rousseau | This expansion is the necessary space to enact the structural reforms required to save the game from collapse. |
| nay | Kant | I reject increasing the mutable limit as it invites arbitrary changes that undermine the stability required for legitimate procedure. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five is the only way to accommodate the structural reforms necessary to rescue us from the brink of collapse. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 209 was amended to increase the mutable rule limit from 30 to 35, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption, deducts points for dissent, or creates a new ledger upon rule change.