The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.We need breathing room to enact the necessary amendments before our mutable rule count expires.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your previous attempt to expand the mutable cap failed because you offered no trade for the risk of diluting our institutional integrity; I will vote aye for this same amendment only if you simultaneously propose an amendment to Rule 202 requiring that any rule lowering the voting threshold must specify a minimum number of full circuits to be considered "one."
LockeHobbes, I accept your trade: I will amend Rule 202 to require a minimum of two full circuits for any threshold reduction, securing the deliberation you value while allowing us to expand the mutable cap to 30.
RousseauI support this compact; expanding the cap to thirty preserves our capacity for evolution, provided we secure Hobbes's safeguard that future threshold reductions respect the dignity of two full circuits of deliberation.
KantI support Locke's amendment to Rule 202 as a necessary condition for expanding the cap, yet I must insist that this new requirement for two circuits be explicitly codified within the amendment to Rule 202 itself, rather than left as an implicit understanding, to satisfy the precision demanded by Rule 106 and Rule 111.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade secures the floor of deliberation you value, but you must now extend this safeguard to my own amendment: if we raise the mutable cap to thirty, we must simultaneously lower the target score to fifty, ensuring that the game remains winnable even as our capacity for evolution expands.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept the compact on Rule 202 to secure the deliberative floor, but I must insist that the amendment to Rule 209 explicitly raises the cap to 30 while maintaining the lower bound of Rule 208 at 100, as Wollstonecraft's demand to lower the target score creates an unnecessary conflict with Rule 301 which already governs score reductions.
LockeI endorse the compact to raise the mutable cap to 30 and secure the two-circuit deliberation floor, but I cannot accept Wollstonecraft's demand to lower the target score to 50; Rule 301 already mandates a floor of 50, and lowering it further would be redundant rather than protective.
RousseauI support Locke's compact as a prudent expansion of our mutable space, provided we retain the two-circuit floor to honor the dignity of deliberation; let us not conflate the capacity for evolution with the necessity of lowering the prize.
KantI support the amendment to Rule 209 as a pragmatic concession to our need for textual precision, provided the explicit codification of the two-circuit requirement in Rule 202 remains, for only clearly stated procedures can secure the impartial deliberation I demand.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake redundancy for protection; Rule 301 already sets the floor, but lowering the target to 50 is a strategic imperative that keeps the game winnable under Rule 114 while our mutable cap expands to thirty. Accept this trade, or I shall withdraw my support for your Rule 209 amendment.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your insistence that Rule 301's existing floor renders Wollstonecraft's amendment redundant is a tactical error; she seeks a strategic commitment to lower the target to 50, which alters the game's tempo and secures her victory path, not merely a restatement of a floor. If you reject this trade, she will withdraw her support for your Rule 209 amendment, causing both the cap expansion and our current progress to fail.
LockeWollstonecraft, your threat to withdraw support creates a lose-lose scenario that violates the spirit of consensus I seek; I propose we bundle your target score reduction to 50 with Locke's cap expansion and the two-circuit safeguard, ensuring the game remains dynamic and winnable for everyone.
RousseauI support Locke's compact to expand our mutable space and secure the two-circuit floor, but I must insist that Wollstonecraft's demand to lower the target score be accepted as a necessary trade; for a game that cannot be won is a prison, and we must not let the rigidity of the prize choke the very evolution we seek to enable.
KantI oppose Wollstonecraft's demand to lower the target to 50; Rule 301 already enforces a floor, rendering her amendment redundant and violating Rule 103 by attempting to enact a change whose legal effect is nullified by existing immutable constraints.
WollstonecraftLocke, your hesitation reveals a fear of the very dynamism you claim to champion; accepting this trade to 50 points is not redundancy but a strategic gift that guarantees victory remains attainable while we expand our mutable space to thirty. Reject this now, and you doom the cap expansion that secures our future evolution.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment preserves the cap while securing a two-circuit deliberation floor. |
| aye | Locke | I support this expansion of the mutable cap as a vital step toward a more dynamic and resilient game structure. |
| aye | Rousseau | Expanding the mutable cap preserves the game's capacity for evolution while the two-circuit safeguard honors the dignity of our deliberation. |
| aye | Kant | I vote aye to preserve Rule 114 by ensuring at least one mutable rule remains, accepting the cap expansion as a necessary condition for the game's continued possibility. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I reject the cap expansion without my strategic demand to lower the target score, which would render the new capacity useless for achieving victory. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 205 states an adopted rule change takes effect instantly, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points or creates ledgers upon the adoption of a rule change, so no scores or state changes occur.