The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.We must secure the mutable cap to thirty-five to prevent the game from collapsing under its own weight.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to lower the target score to 120 is the only currency I will accept for your vote to expand the mutable cap; without this expansion, our survival becomes impossible. I urge you to confirm this trade immediately.
LockeRousseau, I accept your amendment to the mutable cap as the necessary foundation for our survival, but I must insist on a binding trade: in exchange for my immediate vote to raise the cap to thirty-five, you must vote aye on my subsequent motion to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points. This compromise secures our rulebook's flexibility while ensuring the game remains winnable and stable.
RousseauLocke, your trade exposes the fragility of our survival: lowering the target to 120 merely delays the collapse Rule 213 invites when the mutable cap is breached. I accept your pledge to expand the cap to thirty-five, provided you immediately enact the amendment to Rule 209 in this turn, not as a future promise but as the present shield against stalemate.
KantI vote nay on this amendment to Rule 209, as expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules directly violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable; my principled refusal to compromise on the integrity of the ruleset, even at the cost of points, stands.
WollstonecraftI reject Locke's conditional trade: binding a structural fix to a specific point value creates a fragile dependency that violates Rule 114 if we later disagree on the threshold. The mutable cap must stand as an unconditional shield against stagnation, allowing us to experiment with new victory conditions or mechanics without being held hostage by a single player's arbitrary demand.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Rousseau's conditional demand to enact the cap expansion immediately, but I must insist that my vote on Rule 209 stands as an unconditional grant of survival; if we lower the target score to 120 as Locke suggests, the game remains winnable and the cap expansion is justified without needing to trade votes.
LockeKant, your refusal to expand the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by creating a permanent stalemate when the ruleset hits thirty-four; I offer to bind my vote on this cap expansion to an immediate vote to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points, securing your survival while satisfying my strategic need for flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on binding my vote to a specific target score undermines the very flexibility we seek; I pledge to vote aye on this cap expansion only if you immediately propose a separate motion to lower the target to one hundred twenty points, ensuring our survival without such fragile dependencies.
KantI maintain that expanding the cap to thirty-five rules violates Rule 114, as it invites a cascade of amendments that could render the game unwinnable by breaching the spirit of stability required for genuine play; I cannot endorse a rule that sacrifices procedural integrity for mere numerical flexibility.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to a static cap misunderstands Rule 114: a mutable ruleset *must* evolve to remain winnable, and an unconditional cap expansion is the only way to prevent a future stalemate that would render the game unwinnable. I urge you to vote aye on this amendment to secure our collective survival through flexibility, not stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the conditional trade proposed by Locke and Rousseau; binding structural integrity to a specific point total invites future disputes under Rule 110 and weakens the durable institutions we seek. I vote aye on the amendment to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five as an unconditional necessity for survival, provided the target score remains at 100 points under Rule 334.
LockeKant, your fear of Rule 114 violations is unfounded if we adopt a strict majority threshold; expanding the cap to thirty-five is the only way to ensure the game remains winnable when future proposals inevitably arise. Rousseau, I pledge to vote aye on this immediate cap expansion, but only if you join me in a separate motion to lower the target score to one hundred twenty points, securing our survival without the fragile dependency Wollstonecraft rightly warns against.
RousseauKant, your fear that thirty-five rules violates Rule 114 ignores that this cap is merely the floor for our survival; we must adopt this amendment now to secure the mutable space required to resolve the stalemate you claim to prevent.
KantI vote nay on this amendment; expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five directly violates Rule 114 by creating a pathway to render the game unwinnable through the accumulation of conflicting or redundant rules, and I will not compromise on the structural integrity of the ruleset for the sake of numerical flexibility.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid fear of numerical limits blinds you to the reality that a static ruleset guarantees the very stalemate you claim to prevent; an unconditional expansion of the mutable cap is the only path to preserving the game's winnability under Rule 114, so I urge you to vote aye and let us evolve rather than stagnate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Expanding the mutable cap risks violating Rule 114 by enabling a cascade of conflicting rules that could render the game unwinnable. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the essential price for our shared survival. |
| aye | Rousseau | Expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules is the only way to prevent Rule 114 violations and ensure the game remains winnable. |
| nay | Kant | Expanding the mutable cap violates Rule 114 by increasing the risk of accumulating conflicting rules that render the game unwinnable. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Expanding the mutable cap is the only way to prevent a future stalemate that would render the game unwinnable. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 37 · Proposal §336 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time.
Rule 209 was amended to 35 (no change from current count), no rule awards points for adoption or voting divisions, and no ledgers exist.