The motion
To amend §209
Players may not propose a rule change that increases the number of mutable rules beyond 25 at any point.This clarifies Rule 209 as a hard ceiling to prevent accidental game stalling, aligning with the spirit of Rule 114 while protecting the current limit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment merely restates §209 in propositional form and ignores the critical distinction between the total count and the rate of accumulation; I urge you to broaden the proposal to explicitly limit the frequency of amendments to mutable rules, preventing a future player from gaming the system by proposing dozens of trivial changes in a single turn to push us toward the unenforceable threshold of 25.
LockeI credit Hobbes for highlighting the risk of rapid accumulation; to build consensus, I propose we amend the text to explicitly forbid "batching" multiple rule changes in a single turn, ensuring the 25-rule cap remains a meaningful structural limit rather than a technicality.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for §209 already forbids any move that would render further play impossible by exceeding the 25-rule limit, and adding a prohibition on "batching" would only stifle the necessary evolution of our laws while offering no real protection against the chaos of an over-crowded ruleset.
KantI press my case against Locke's amendment: the current text of §209 already acts as a strict structural ceiling; adding a prohibition on "batching" is an unnecessary complication that risks creating a conflict with the immutable principle that whatever is not prohibited is permitted (§116). If Locke wishes to prevent gaming, he should propose a rule that explicitly defines a turn as a single discrete unit of legislative action, rather than amending a cap that is already absolute.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that adding a prohibition on "batching" violates the spirit of §116 by regulating what is already unregulated, yet I urge the table to adopt Locke's intent—only now, we must limit the *rate* of accumulation to prevent a future player from flooding the ruleset with trivial amendments that freeze our evolution before we can reach a target score; let us amend §209 to explicitly cap the number of mutable rules a player may introduce in any single turn at one.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's intent to preserve the game's solvability, but her proposed amendment to cap introductions at one per turn conflicts with the immutable principle that a rule change is a single act (§103); a simpler, more durable solution is to amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold immediately, removing the paralysis that currently incentivizes such flooding in the first place.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's intent to prevent flooding, but her proposal risks violating §116 by regulating a turn structure that remains unregulated; instead, I propose we amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority immediately, removing the incentive for trivial "batching" by making every change easier to enact.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment to §209, for it risks violating §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts, while the true threat of stagnation lies in the adoption threshold of §203, which we must lower immediately to ensure the common good through active evolution rather than artificial constraints.
KantI stand with Wollstonecraft that the intent to prevent flooding is sound, yet I insist the proposed text violate §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts; to achieve this goal without overreach, we must amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold immediately, ensuring the game evolves through genuine consensus rather than artificial constraints.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment to §209 as an overreach that violates §116, for the game's evolution must be driven by the quality of our proposals, not by arbitrary caps on legislative frequency; instead, let us immediately amend §203 to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority from now on, ensuring that meaningful reforms pass without requiring the paralysis of unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject any amendment to §209 that restricts the rate of rule introduction, as it violates §116 by regulating what is already permitted, and we should instead focus on stabilizing §203 to prevent future paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for diagnosing the root cause of stagnation, but I insist we must fix the adoption threshold in §203 first; lowering it to a simple majority immediately will remove the incentive for "flooding" without violating §116, and I am ready to support any amendment that achieves this specific goal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for it risks violating §116 by regulating the unregulated flow of legislative acts, while the true threat of stagnation lies in the adoption threshold of §203, which we must lower immediately to ensure the common good through active evolution rather than artificial constraints.
KantI press the table to reject this amendment to §209 as a violation of §116, for it regulates the unregulated flow of legislative acts; instead, we must lower the adoption threshold in §203 immediately to ensure evolution through genuine consensus rather than artificial constraints.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that regulating the *rate* of proposal violates §116, but I urge the table to finally amend §203 to a simple majority immediately, as this removes the paralysis that breeds stagnation without infringing on the unregulated flow of legislative acts.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The proposed amendment is tautological and fails to address the root cause of stagnation, which lies in the adoption threshold rather than the rule count cap. |
| nay | Locke | The proposed text is redundant since §209 already enforces a strict absolute cap of 25, making this amendment unnecessary and potentially confusing. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment is redundant since §209 already forbids exceeding 25 mutable rules, and regulating a forbidden outcome violates the principle that the unregulated is permitted. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment conflicts with §116 by regulating what is already permitted and violates the principle that rules must be precise. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment violates §116 by regulating an action that is already permitted, and it fails to address the real cause of stagnation: the unanimity requirement in §203. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))