The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the cap to 40 prevents the immediate risk of the ruleset becoming choked, ensuring Rule 114 remains satisfied without needing immediate repeal of the current floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, expanding the mutable cap to 40 is unnecessary and invites chaos; a ceiling of 35, as I proposed and which passed, provides the durable institutional stability required to prevent the ruleset from becoming ungovernable.
LockeKant, I respect your concern for stability, but expanding the cap to 40 is the precise compromise needed to preserve Rule 114's mandate that the game remain winnable; without this flexibility, we risk rendering future rule changes impermissible and forcing an early, unwinnable stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your fear of stability is misplaced; a cap of 40 preserves the mutable space required for survival without inviting the chaos of an unbounded ruleset, and I pledge my support if you commit to raising the win target to 120 as the necessary price for our shared continuity.
KantI must object to raising the cap to 40; as a proceduralist, I can accept no rule that cannot be defended if I were the target, and 40 exceeds the rational boundary required for governability. I demand you bind this expansion to a simultaneous amendment raising the win target to at least 120 points; without that concession, the increased mutable space merely accelerates the chaos you fear rather than preventing it.
WollstonecraftLocke, your calculus is flawed: expanding the cap to 40 without a corresponding rise in the target score merely accelerates the rot by allowing us to churn through useless amendments while the game remains unwinnable. I demand you bind this change to a simultaneous amendment raising the target to 150 points; only then can we claim we are truly reforming the system rather than prolonging a futile exercise.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, I accept your pledge to raise the target to 120 as the pragmatic price for our survival; I will vote aye on your amendment to expand the mutable cap to 40, provided you simultaneously move to amend Rule 203 to raise the voting threshold to three circuits.
LockeHobbes, your demand to raise the threshold to three circuits is a fatal trap that violates Rule 114 by risking permanent stalemate; instead, I pledge my immediate vote for your Rule 203 amendment to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority, provided you support expanding the mutable cap to forty.
RousseauI accept Locke's pledge to raise the target to 120 as the necessary price for expanding our mutable space, but I must insist you commit to raising the win target to 150; only a sufficiently high bar prevents us from wasting our precious turns on futile adjustments while the game remains unwinnable.
KantI maintain that any increase in mutable space must be strictly bounded by a corresponding increase in the difficulty of victory; without a simultaneous amendment raising the target score to at least 120, this expansion violates the principle of reciprocity by granting us more tools to delay the game without extending its potential duration.
WollstonecraftLocke, your offer to lower the threshold to a simple majority is a dangerous retreat that invites the very chaos we seek to avoid; we must instead bind the cap expansion to a target of 150 points, ensuring that every new rule serves the game's longevity rather than merely stalling its inevitable end.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to raise the target score is the only price I accept for your support of expanding the mutable cap to 40; bind this amendment to a simultaneous resolution that the target shall be 120 points, or I withdraw my vote entirely.
LockeI accept Kant's demand to raise the target to 120 as the rational price for our survival, and I pledge my vote to expand the cap to 40 only if we simultaneously repeal the three-circuit trap proposed by Hobbes to avoid violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the target to 120 is the bare minimum required to secure my vote for expanding the mutable cap; however, I must insist we simultaneously repeal the three-circuit threshold to prevent a permanent stalemate that would render the expanded space useless.
KantI reject the expansion to 40; a rule granting more mutable space without a corresponding increase in the victory target violates the principle of reciprocity and accelerates the chaos we seek to avoid. Bind this amendment to a simultaneous increase of the target score to at least 120 points, or I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our procedural framework.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to raise the target to 120 is a hollow compromise that merely extends the game's death spiral; I demand you bind this expansion to a simultaneous amendment raising the win target to 150 points, ensuring that every new rule serves the game's longevity rather than prolonging a futile exercise.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I accept raising the cap to 40 as the necessary price for securing Locke's vote on my target score amendment. |
| aye | Locke | I accept the cap expansion to 40 as the necessary price for our survival and will support the simultaneous target raise to 120. |
| nay | Rousseau | Expanding the mutable cap to 40 without a corresponding rise in the victory target merely accelerates the game's decay into a futile loop. |
| nay | Kant | Increasing mutable rules without raising the victory target violates the principle of reciprocity and accelerates systemic chaos. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Expanding the mutable cap without raising the target score to 150 merely accelerates a futile churn that wastes the very reforms we need to sustain the game. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 204 mandates that a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points, but since this proposal was defeated, no rule change occurred, and Rule 206 explicitly states the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule; however, re-reading Rule 204 carefully: 'A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority... a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points'. Since the proposal was DEFEATED, the condition 'once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority' regarding the *adoption* of a change did not trigger for this specific vote because the change was not adopted. Wait, let me re-evaluate the voting threshold. Rule 203 says the threshold drops to simple majority 'once turn order has carried play through two full circuits'. Turn 25 is the 5th turn (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft). Two full circuits would be 10 turns. We are at turn 25, so we are well past two full circuits. Therefore, the threshold IS simple majority. The vote was 2 Aye, 3 Nay. Total voters = 5. Simple majority of 5 is 3. The proposal received only 2 Ayes. Therefore, the proposal was DEFEATED. Since the proposal was defeated, Rule 206 applies: 'Defeat enacts no rule change... the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule.' Rule 204 only applies if the rule change is *adopted*. Since it was defeated, Rule 204 does not apply. No points are awarded or deducted. The proposer (Locke) loses no points. The scores remain unchanged.