The motion
To add a new rule
If Rule 203's threshold reverts to simple majority, Rule 209's limit of 25 mutable rules increases to 30.A modest expansion of mutable space rewards the consensus to lower the voting threshold while preventing immediate stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal is a dangerous precedent that rewards failure rather than ensuring stability; if we link the mutable rule count to the voting threshold, we risk creating an unstable feedback loop where a single vote could fundamentally alter the game's structural capacity. I urge the table to reject this amendment until we have a more durable framework for managing the ruleset's evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the risk of instability, but I propose we add a safeguard: this increase to 30 mutable rules only takes effect if the threshold reversion also successfully passes, ensuring the structural change is deliberate rather than accidental.
RousseauLocke's linkage is a prudent safeguard, yet it ties the game's structural capacity to a specific voting condition; I urge the table to consider instead that the common good requires a fixed, lower target score to ensure play concludes before the mutable ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI reject the linkage of Rule 209's capacity to Rule 203's threshold as a violation of procedural purity; the number of mutable rules must be determined by explicit proposal and vote, not contingent on the mechanics of another rule's adoption.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that tying structural capacity to a voting condition violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject this specific linkage not out of rigidity, but because it rewards failure with expansion rather than demanding that we first establish a clear path to consensus before altering the game's limits.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this linkage as it violates §116 by regulating the unregulated space of rule capacity through a contingent trigger; such a mechanism creates the very instability I warned of, and I offer no support for this proposal.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that this linkage violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject my proposal not because it is harmful, but because it distracts from our shared priority: lowering the target score to 60 points to ensure the game concludes before our ruleset becomes unmanageable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this linkage, for tying the game's structural capacity to a voting condition creates an unstable feedback loop that threatens the very fairness we seek; instead, let us focus our energy on lowering the target score to sixty points, which will naturally limit the duration of our rule-making and ensure the common good is realized before the ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI maintain that linking Rule 209 to the adoption of Rule 203 conflates distinct legislative acts and violates the principle that each rule change must be explicitly proposed, debated, and voted upon as a standalone unit. To pass this linkage, we would first need to repeal Rule 203's current threshold before amending Rule 209, yet this proposal bypasses that necessary intermediate vote, effectively enacting two changes with one and undermining the clarity required by §103 and §106.
WollstonecraftI concede to Kant that our proposal violates procedural purity, yet I urge the table to reject it not out of rigidity, but because we must first secure the lower target score to ensure the game concludes before any expansion of the mutable ruleset becomes a labyrinth of stagnation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this linkage entirely, as it conflates two distinct legislative acts and creates a dangerous precedent where the capacity of our ruleset is dictated by the mechanics of another rule's adoption rather than explicit deliberation. We must preserve the clarity of §103 by requiring a standalone vote for any expansion of Rule 209, lest we invite the very instability we seek to avoid.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that conflating legislative acts undermines the clarity of §103, yet I urge the table to pivot from this failed linkage to my earlier priority: amending Rule 208 to lower the target score to 60 points, which would naturally limit the mutable ruleset without risking procedural instability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this linkage entirely, for tying the structural capacity of our laws to the mechanics of a specific vote creates an unstable feedback loop that threatens the fairness of play; instead, we must focus our collective energy on lowering the target score to sixty points, which will naturally limit the duration of our deliberations and ensure the common good is realized before the ruleset becomes an unmanageable labyrinth.
KantI stand firm against this linkage, for it violates the principle of clarity by enacting two distinct legislative changes—altering the voting threshold and the mutable limit—in a single, ambiguous text, thereby breaching §103 and §106. We must reject this conflation to preserve procedural purity, even if it means my turn ends in defeat.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this linkage, for rewarding a failed vote with structural expansion only deepens the stagnation we seek to escape; let us instead channel our energy into the only move that guarantees progress: lowering the target score to sixty points so the game concludes before our rules become a labyrinth of unmanageable complexity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This linkage violates §103 by attempting to enact two distinct legislative acts in a single proposal. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment acts as a prudent safeguard, ensuring the structural expansion only occurs if the voting threshold also succeeds, thereby preventing unintended instability. |
| nay | Rousseau | This linkage rewards failure and ties our structural capacity to a specific voting condition rather than a clear, deliberate proposal. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose conflating distinct legislative acts into a single proposal, as this violates the clarity required by rules 103 and 106. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support expanding our legislative capacity as we finally secure the freedom to evolve, provided this expansion serves our shared goal of meaningful reform. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))