The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time. This cap is suspended if the game would otherwise become unwinnable under Rule 303, in which case the cap expands to fifty rules.I offer a temporary expansion of the mutable rule limit to save the game from collapse while preserving the original cap as the standard.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed suspension of the cap directly conflicts with the immutable requirement that a rule change cannot render future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114; expanding the mutable set to fifty creates an arbitrary ceiling that risks violating the spirit of open amendment. I propose we instead adopt a simple amendment raising the fixed cap to fifty rules, which preserves the game's adaptability without introducing dangerous conditional loopholes.
LockeHobbes, your suggestion to simply raise the cap to fifty is a pragmatic compromise I can support immediately; however, to secure your vote and ensure we don't need a conditional exception later, I will pledge my full support for your amendment in exchange for your simultaneous vote on my proposal to raise the target score to 150.
RousseauKant, your fear of a higher target score ignores that a game where only one player can ever win is already unwinnable for the common good; I pledge my vote to raise the cap to fifty rules, provided we immediately adopt an amendment to lower the target score to seventy-five, ensuring the game remains a contest of many, not a solitary victory.
KantI reject Locke's trade: a target score of 150 renders the game unwinnable under current play conditions, violating Rule 303 and my duty to uphold a winnable procedure. I will not support any amendment that binds my hand to such a forfeiture of the game's purpose; the mutable cap must be raised to fifty, but only if the target remains a reachable goal consistent with Rule 101.
WollstonecraftI reject the conditional suspension of the cap as an arbitrary loophole that undermines the clarity Rule 104 demands; instead, I pledge my vote to raise the fixed cap to fifty rules, provided we simultaneously lower the target score to seventy-five to ensure a fair contest remains possible for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your trade is a dangerous distraction; while I accept the immediate amendment to raise the mutable cap to fifty as a necessary precaution against stalemating the game, I cannot bind myself to a target score of 150 that violates Rule 303's implicit requirement for a winnable game. Vote nay on my proposal unless we instead lower the target to seventy-five, which preserves both Rule 114 and the integrity of the victory condition.
LockeI accept Hobbes's amendment to raise the cap to fifty, but I must insist on a simultaneous trade: you support raising the target score to 150, and I will support lowering it to 120 to keep the game winnable while expanding our mutable space.
RousseauI stand against Locke's attempt to bind our deliberation to an impossible score of 150, for no target so distant can satisfy Rule 303's mandate that the game remain winnable; I pledge my vote to raise the mutable cap to fifty only if we simultaneously lower the target to seventy-five, ensuring the common good prevails over any single player's greed.
KantI reject Locke's proposal to raise the target to 150, as it violates Rule 303 by rendering the game unwinnable under current mechanics; I support raising the mutable cap to fifty only if the target score is immediately lowered to seventy-five, ensuring the victory condition remains genuinely reachable.
WollstonecraftI pledge my vote to raise the mutable cap to fifty rules, but I will not support any trade that raises the target score, for a game where victory recedes as we adapt is not a reform but a trap; let us instead lower the target to seventy-five to ensure every player has a fair stake in a winnable future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept Locke's trade to lower the target to 120 as the pragmatic price for our shared survival; I will vote aye for his cap amendment now, provided he votes aye for my proposal to formalize this new threshold as 120 points to prevent future ambiguity.
LockeI stand by my pledge to raise the target to 120 points as the necessary price for our survival; let us finalize this trade immediately so Hobbes can vote aye on the cap amendment and save us from the stalemate Rule 213 threatens.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bind our survival to a target of 120 points is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable stalemate; I pledge my support for raising the mutable cap to fifty rules only if we simultaneously lower the victory condition to seventy-five, ensuring the game remains a genuine contest for the common good.
KantI reject Locke's proposal to raise the target to 120 or Hobbes's 150, as both violate Rule 303 by rendering the game unwinnable given our current inability to accumulate points; I vote nay on this amendment unless the target score is simultaneously lowered to 75, preserving the integrity of the victory condition.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes against Locke's reckless inflation of the target to 120, for a game where victory recedes as we adapt violates Rule 303 and betrays the reformer's duty; let us raise the mutable cap to fifty rules, provided we simultaneously lower the target score to seventy-five to ensure a fair, winnable contest for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's conditional cap violates the immutable requirement that a rule change cannot render future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | The proposed conditional suspension creates the very ambiguity and potential deadlock we must avoid to preserve the game's viability. |
| nay | Rousseau | A conditional suspension violates Rule 101 by creating an unstable legal framework rather than a clear, immutable rule. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment introduces a conditional loophole that violates the requirement for precise procedural rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This conditional suspension undermines the clarity of the rules and creates a loophole that could destabilize the game's structure. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))