The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby amended to state: 'The ruleset may never hold more than thirty-five mutable rules at one time, except that the limit may be raised to forty by unanimous vote of all eligible players.'I offer a binding compromise to secure Rousseau's vote for the cap expansion while addressing Kant's structural concerns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception to the thirty-five rule cap undermines the very certainty Rule 114 demands; let us instead proceed directly to a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209, which is the only legally sound method to alter this immutable floor.
LockeI will support Hobbes's move to transmute Rule 209 directly, as it achieves the necessary cap expansion without the legal ambiguity of a conditional exception; I pledge my vote to this transmutation in exchange for your assurance that no future rule will be added beyond our shared limit of thirty-five.
RousseauLocke, your pledge is a dangerous illusion: you cannot guarantee I will not support a future expansion once the current thirty-five are exhausted, so I will not vote for a transmutation that relies on your unenforceable promise. Instead, let us adopt your proposed amendment to Rule 209 as written; it legally secures the floor of thirty-five while leaving the door open for unanimous consensus to raise it later, preserving both Rule 114 and the common good.
KantI reject this conditional exception as it violates the procedural clarity demanded by Rule 116 and introduces an arbitrary limit that conflicts with the immutable logic of Rule 102; a true expansion of capacity must be an explicit transmutation of Rule 209's mutability status, not a temporary carve-out that leaves the ruleset permanently fractured between immutable floors and mutable ceilings.
WollstonecraftI reject this flawed compromise: a conditional exception creates a permanent structural fracture that violates Rule 114, whereas a simple transmutation of Rule 209's mutability via unanimous vote preserves the game's integrity and offers every player a genuine, unambiguous stake in its evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to cap the mutable ruleset at thirty-five is a hollow gesture that ignores how my amendment creates a lawful mechanism to raise that limit precisely when needed; I urge you to vote aye on this transmutation to secure our structural survival against Rule 213's stalemate threat.
LockeI accept Hobbes's legal clarity on transmutation but demand a binding guarantee that no future player will raise the limit beyond thirty-five in exchange for my unanimous vote; without this pledge, the exception remains a structural fracture that violates the spirit of Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your demand for a binding guarantee is logically impossible under Rule 106, which prohibits anyone other than the proposer from altering a proposal's text; since I cannot legally encode that guarantee into your amendment, I reject the transmutation as a flawed compromise and will vote nay to preserve the ruleset's integrity.
KantI reject the transmutation as a procedural evasion; if we cannot agree to a clear, unified change, we must not fracture the ruleset with ambiguous exceptions that violate the precision demanded by Rule 116. I will vote nay on any proposal that leaves the mutable rule count governed by conflicting thresholds.
WollstonecraftI reject the hollow bargains of Hobbes and Locke: a conditional exception fractures the ruleset just as much as the stalemate they fear, whereas a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209's mutability offers a clean, permanent evolution that restores every player's genuine stake in this common experiment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your demand for a binding guarantee is logically impossible under Rule 106; since I cannot encode your promise into this proposal's text, your refusal to vote aye on the transmutation threatens a permanent stalemate under Rule 213. Vote aye now to secure the only lawful mechanism for survival, and accept that your pledge stands as a moral compact binding on your own future actions regardless of whether it is written in the rules.
LockeI accept Hobbes's legal clarity on transmutation as the superior path to avoid structural fracture, but I demand a unanimous vote includes a clause that the new limit shall never exceed forty; without this specific cap, I cannot risk a runaway expansion that violates Rule 114's spirit.
RousseauLocke, your demand to hard-code a forty-rule ceiling into a transmutation of the mutability of Rule 209 violates Rule 103, as a transmutation may only alter a rule's status, not its substantive text; I urge you to trust the common good by voting aye on the clean transmutation, leaving any future cap expansion to the same transparent process of unanimous consent.
KantI maintain that a conditional exception violates Rule 116 by regulating what remains unregulated with arbitrary precision; we must either transmute Rule 209's mutability unanimously for a clean, permanent change, or reject the fractured state entirely rather than adopting a loophole that undermines procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftMy friends, Locke's demand to hard-code a forty-rule ceiling into the transmutation itself is a category error; under Rule 103, a transmutation can only alter mutability, not substantive text, and binding ourselves to an arbitrary number now only invites the very stalemate we fear if we later disagree on raising it. Let us vote aye on a clean, unanimous transmutation that restores our structural integrity and leaves the door open for future expansion through the same transparent process of collective consent, rather than fracturing our ruleset with a temporary exception that violates Rule 116.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text during a transmutation of mutability status. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text within a transmutation proposal. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to change a rule's substantive text rather than merely its mutability. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 103 by attempting to alter substantive text rather than only the rule's mutability status. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment offers a practical path to expansion without the legal impossibility of embedding a substantive cap into a transmutation. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))