The motion
To add a new rule
The ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.This enforces Rule 114's requirement for future changes by guaranteeing a permanent floor of mutable rules, preventing the table from accidentally collapsing into a static, unwinnable state.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to establish a floor of ten mutable rules is a prudent safeguard against the chaos of an empty framework, yet it is redundant in light of Rule 114, which already mandates that at least one mutable rule must exist; instead of bloating the ruleset with a number so low as to be functionally inert, we should reserve our mutable slots for substantive changes that directly secure our survival, such as finalizing the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates. PASS
LockeI commend Rousseau's intent to secure the game's continuity, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that our immediate survival depends on resolving the negative-score stalemate rather than establishing a low floor; I propose we instead trade my support for the mutable cap expansion to a pledge that the target score remains at 100 points, ensuring the game stays winnable while we fix the forfeiture loophole.
RousseauHobbes, your concern is well-founded, but Rule 114 only mandates a bare minimum of one rule; a floor of ten ensures sufficient flexibility to enact the substantive changes required to avert the stalemate you fear. Locke, while I accept your offer to secure the target score, I cannot bind myself to a static number without first seeing the specific amendment that resolves the negative-score paradox; only by finalizing the forfeiture conditions can we guarantee that raising the target does not render the game unwinnable.
KantRousseau, your floor of ten is an unnecessary inflation that wastes mutable slots which could instead clarify the precise conditions under which a negative score triggers forfeiture to prevent Rule 213 stalemates; I will support this amendment only if it explicitly states that the game remains winnable should the ruleset be reduced to exactly ten rules, ensuring compliance with Rule 114.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to lower the target score is a desperate maneuver that ignores the immediate necessity of securing our mutable floor; I pledge my support for this amendment only if we simultaneously bind the target to remain at 100 points, ensuring the game remains winnable while we fortify the ruleset against collapse.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your floor of ten is a hollow distraction; we must instead finalize the forfeiture mechanics that currently endanger us, or I will vote nay on anything that does not directly prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
LockeI accept Hobbes's judgment that this floor is redundant given Rule 114, but I will vote nay to block it only if we do not simultaneously finalize the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
RousseauLocke, your conditional nay on this structural safeguard reveals a dangerous prioritization of immediate tactical fixes over the long-term stability of the framework; I pledge my support for finalizing the forfeiture conditions only if we first secure this floor of ten, ensuring that our survival mechanisms do not dissolve the very ruleset we seek to save.
KantLocke, your conditional nay reveals a contradiction: you claim the floor is redundant yet refuse to vote without it, rendering your position void under Rule 114's demand for logical consistency; I will support this amendment only if we simultaneously adopt a rule clarifying that a score of zero ends the game to prevent the Rule 213 stalemate, as procedure must serve survival, not obscure it.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional nay exposes a fatal flaw in your strategy: you seek to block a structural safeguard that would ironically secure the very space needed to pass the forfeiture clarifications you claim to prioritize. I pledge my vote for this floor of ten rules only if you simultaneously commit to amending Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap, proving that stability and adaptability are not enemies but partners in our survival.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your floor of ten is a hollow distraction that wastes mutable slots; I pledge my vote aye on this amendment only if you simultaneously commit to finalizing the forfeiture conditions that prevent Rule 213 stalemates.
LockeRousseau, your floor of ten is redundant given Rule 114, but I will support this amendment as a binding trade: in exchange for your aye, I pledge my vote to simultaneously adopt a rule finalizing the forfeiture conditions to prevent Rule 213 stalemates, securing our survival while respecting the need for structural safeguards.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to secure the forfeiture conditions is the very stability this floor demands; I accept your trade and will vote aye on both rules to ensure our mutable framework remains robust enough to enact these vital clarifications.
KantLocke, your pledge to secure the forfeiture conditions is insufficient without a binding guarantee that the target score remains at 100 points; I will support the floor of ten only if we simultaneously amend Rule 334 to prevent the target from being raised, ensuring the game remains winnable under Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI pledge my vote for this floor of ten rules as the essential bedrock for our survival, but only if we simultaneously lock the target score at 100 points to ensure the game remains winnable while we fortify our framework against collapse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This floor wastes scarce mutable slots needed for the substantive forfeiture clarification that actually prevents stalemate. |
| aye | Locke | I accept Rousseau's floor as a symbolic buffer to secure the mutable slots needed for our critical forfeiture fix. |
| aye | Rousseau | This floor secures the mutable space needed to enact the forfeiture clarifications that prevent stalemate. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 114 already mandates at least one mutable rule, making a floor of ten an unnecessary inflation that wastes precious slots needed to clarify the negative-score paradox and prevent Rule 213 stalemate. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This floor secures the mutable space needed to enact the survival reforms we all require. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §338 Turn 39 · Proposal §338 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset shall never hold fewer than ten mutable rules at any time.
The adopted rule adds a new rule to the set but does not name any existing rule by number to repeal or amend, so no surgical operations are required, and no rules award points or modify ledgers upon adoption.