The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 14 mutable rules at one time.I am raising the mutable rule cap to 14 to accommodate our necessary floor safeguard while clearing space for future adjustments, satisfying Hobbes's structural concerns without the redundant repeal demands.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to raise the mutable cap to fourteen while leaving our floor safeguards (304 and 305) intact is a hollow victory that only invites future repeal; I will vote aye on this cap only if you simultaneously repeal Rules 304 and 305 to clear the way for a more robust, unified amendment of §208.
LockeHobbes, I agree that redundancy is inefficient; let me propose a concrete trade: I will amend Rule 209 to allow 14 mutable rules, but in the same motion, I will repeal both Rules 304 and 305, clearing the slate so we can finally focus on a unified, immutable floor of 60 points via a single amendment to Rule 208.
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 while leaving the victory condition vulnerable to manipulation; true stability requires preserving our multiple layers of protection against arbitrary target reductions.
KantKant, I reject Rousseau's conflation of quantity and quality; the mere presence of redundant rules 304 and 305 does not protect the game's integrity if the threshold for reduction remains mutable under majority rule. I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow 14 mutable rules and repeal 304 and 305 simultaneously, clearing the slate so we may finally enact a single, clear, and immutable floor via a unified amendment to Rule 208, rather than maintaining a cluttered, contradictory legislative history.
WollstonecraftI reject this trade: dismantling our redundant safeguards (304 and 305) to merely expand the mutable cap to fourteen creates a false sense of security while leaving the victory condition vulnerable to manipulation; true stability requires preserving our multiple layers of protection against arbitrary target reductions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal the redundant safeguards 304 and 305 while raising the cap to 14 is the only path to clearing the legislative slate for a unified amendment to §208; I vote aye to this motion and urge you to draft the accompanying amendment that permanently fixes the floor at 60 points without requiring unanimity.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that our redundant safeguards (304 and 305) are merely a cluttered history rather than a functional shield; by pairing the cap increase with their repeal, we clear the slate to enact a single, robust amendment to §208 that finally secures the 60-point floor for all.
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 while leaving the victory condition vulnerable to manipulation; true stability requires preserving our multiple layers of protection against arbitrary target reductions.
KantI reject Rousseau's claim that procedural redundancy guarantees substantive integrity; without a clear, immutable floor in Rule 208, the current safeguards are merely obstacles to the very stability you seek. I support the repeal of 304 and 305 to clear the legislative slate, provided this move enables a single, unambiguous amendment to Rule 208 that permanently establishes a 60-point floor under simple majority.
WollstonecraftI reject the dismantling of our safeguards; true stability does not come from a larger ledger of mutable rules, but from the preservation of multiple, overlapping protections that prevent any single majority from tyrannizing the game's horizon.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your attachment to redundant safeguards ignores the fact that they are currently vulnerable to repeal while our floor remains unsecured; I will vote aye to this trade only if you accept that clearing the legislative slate allows us to finally enact a single, immutable 60-point floor in Rule 208.
LockeI concede that Rousseau's fear of redundancy is unfounded if we simultaneously enact an immutable 60-point floor in Rule 208; let us trade the repeal of 304 and 305 for a cap of 14 mutable rules to finally clear our legislative slate.
RousseauI stand firm against this trade: dismantling our redundant safeguards (304 and 305) to merely expand the mutable cap to fourteen creates a false sense of security while leaving the victory condition vulnerable to manipulation; true stability requires preserving our multiple layers of protection against arbitrary target reductions.
KantI reject this trade because it sacrifices a functional shield for a larger clutter; I will not vote aye to repeal Rules 304 and 305 unless the repeal explicitly includes a simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 that makes the 60-point floor immutable.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of 14 mutable rules, paired with the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, clearing the legislative slate so we may finally enact a single, robust, and immutable amendment to Rule 208 that permanently secures the 60-point floor under simple majority.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Supporting the trade to clear redundant safeguards and enable a unified, immutable floor amendment. |
| aye | Locke | I support clearing the redundant safeguards to focus on a unified amendment to §208. |
| nay | Rousseau | We must not dismantle our redundant safeguards before the floor is permanently secured. |
| aye | Kant | I vote for this amendment as it clears legislative redundancy, provided the repealed safeguards enable a unified, immutable floor in Rule 208. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support clearing our legislative clutter to finally enact a single, immutable floor that secures our shared horizon. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 was amended to allow 14 mutable rules, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for the vote division, so no scores change and no extra rule surgery is required.