The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 13 mutable rules at one time.I will expand the mutable rule cap to 13 to allow us to secure the 60-point floor and other safeguards, then repeal the redundant ones, preserving the game's integrity without freezing it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose that we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 15, but only if we simultaneously enact a rule that lowers the target score to 50, ensuring the game remains viable despite our expanded legislative capacity.
LockeI support Hobbes's push to cap mutable rules at 15, as it creates the breathing room we need to enact a new rule lowering the target score to 50, a move that remains unanimous under §304 and would secure a swift victory for all.
RousseauI reject the notion of lowering the target to 50, for such a reduction would trivialize the shared pursuit of victory and render our deliberations meaningless; instead, I propose that any cap on mutable rules must be paired with a permanent floor for the target score at 60, ensuring our game remains both robust and fair for all.
KantI reject this trade; expanding our legislative capacity without securing the immutable integrity of the victory condition invites the very tyranny of rule-stacking we seek to avoid. Unless we first enact a rule fixing the target score at a non-trivial minimum, I will vote nay.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve, paired with the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, to clear our legislative deck of redundant safeguards while allowing the majority to adjust the target score fairly once we have moved through three full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305; they serve as a necessary floor to prevent the majority from trivializing our victory condition, and I will only support a higher mutable cap if that floor remains explicitly preserved.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of 13, paired with the unanimous enactment of a rule fixing the target score at 70, securing our victory horizon while granting the flexibility Hobbes needs to clear our legislative deck.
RousseauI reject any cap on mutable rules that relies on a fixed target score, for such a floor merely freezes the game's spirit while allowing the majority to manipulate the ruleset indefinitely; true fairness demands that our legislative capacity be balanced by a commitment to the common good, not by a static victory condition that stifles our ability to evolve.
KantI reject any trade that links legislative capacity to a fixed victory condition, for such a move violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from the original target; I will vote nay unless the proposal explicitly amends §213 to allow the target to be lowered below 60 only with unanimous assent, thereby preserving the game's spirit without freezing its evolution.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve, paired with the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, to clear our legislative deck of redundant safeguards while allowing the majority to adjust the target score fairly once we have moved through three full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI will not vote aye on a cap of thirteen unless we simultaneously repeal Rules 304 and 305, as retaining redundant safeguards while expanding legislative capacity is both inefficient and strategically foolish.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of 14, paired with the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, which clears our deck of redundant safeguards while granting us just enough legislative breathing room to adjust the target score fairly.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling our redundant safeguards (304 and 305) to merely expand the mutable cap to fourteen creates a false sense of security that invites the tyranny of rule-stacking, for a larger legislative deck without a permanent floor is a recipe for trivializing our shared victory condition.
KantI reject this trade entirely; dismantling the redundant safeguards (304, 305) to expand our legislative capacity violates §116's requirement that whatever is not prohibited remains permitted, as these rules explicitly prohibit the trivialization of victory that we must guard against. I will vote nay unless we first amend §213 to ensure that any reduction of the target score below 60 requires unanimous assent, thereby preserving the game's integrity without freezing its evolution.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve, paired with the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, to clear our legislative deck of redundant safeguards while allowing the majority to adjust the target score fairly once we have moved through three full circuits.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I reject expanding our mutable cap to thirteen without first repealing the redundant safeguards of 304 and 305, as retaining them while increasing legislative capacity is inefficient and strategically foolish. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot support expanding the mutable cap to 13 without simultaneously repealing the redundant safeguards (304 and 305) that protect our shared integrity. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject expanding our mutable capacity while dismantling the redundant safeguards that preserve our shared floor. |
| nay | Kant | I reject expanding mutable rules while dismantling safeguards that prevent trivializing the victory condition. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support clearing the deck of redundant safeguards to restore our legislative freedom and allow the majority to shape fairer rules for all. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')