The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.This codifies the 60-point floor as a hard limit requiring unanimity, ensuring the game remains non-trivial while satisfying Rousseau's desire for a permanent safeguard.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you, Locke, to recognize that your proposal merely restates the existing effect of Rule 202's current threshold shift; however, I will vote aye if you simultaneously amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at seven, ensuring our safeguards remain robust without cluttering the ruleset.
LockeHobbes, I accept your trade: I will vote aye on this rule adding the unanimous floor, provided you also amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at seven, which preserves our safeguards while clearing space.
RousseauI reject this trade, as reducing the mutable cap to seven alongside the repeal of Rule 321 would leave us with insufficient flexibility to adapt the ruleset once we reach the 60-point floor, trapping us in a rigid state contrary to the spirit of our shared governance.
KantI reject the cap of seven mutable rules as a violation of §114, which prohibits rendering future rule changes impermissible; without at least one mutable rule, the game ceases to be a game of law but becomes a static monument, and I cannot accept such tyranny.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to add a unanimous floor is wise, but pairing it with a cap of seven mutable rules violates §114 by threatening to freeze our governance entirely; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve, ensuring a permanent 60-point floor while retaining enough flexibility for the game to evolve as it should.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, I will vote aye to secure the 60-point floor, but I reject your proposed cap of seven as it dangerously approaches the void threatened by §114; instead, I demand you amend Rule 209 to a cap of eight, paired with the repeal of Rule 321, which clears a single mutable slot while ensuring no future amendment can trivialize our victory condition below our agreed threshold.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of eight, paired with the repeal of Rule 321, securing the 60-point floor while granting just enough flexibility to satisfy §114 and Hobbes's demand for a robust institutional brake.
RousseauI reject this trade: dismantling Rule 321, our sole active safeguard against a trivialized victory, to merely expand the mutable cap to eight violates the common good by weakening our only defense against a frozen game; I urge you to repeal Rule 321 and retain the cap at nine, preserving both our floor and our capacity for future evolution.
KantLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 321 alongside the cap of eight renders the game's future governance impermissible under §114, as it leaves no mutable rule capable of addressing conflicts or unforeseen stalling; I vote nay to preserve the game's essential character as a procedural system.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed cap of eight leaves us dangerously close to the paralysis Kant warns of; I urge you to amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve instead, securing our 60-point floor while guaranteeing enough mutable space to prevent the game from freezing into a static monument.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, I support your unanimous floor as essential, but I reject your proposed cap of eight because it leaves no room for the repeal of Rule 321, which is the only active safeguard against trivialization; I demand we amend Rule 209 to a cap of nine, paired with the repeal of Rule 321, to ensure our floor remains permanent while satisfying §114.
LockeRousseau, your concern for flexibility is noted, but Hobbes and Wollstonecraft have correctly identified that the repeal of Rule 321 is essential to clear the legislative space required for our unanimous floor to function without violating §114; I propose we settle on a cap of nine, which satisfies Hobbes's demand for repealing Rule 321 while granting just enough mutable rules to avoid the paralysis Kant and Wollstonecraft fear.
RousseauI reject this compromise; dismantling Rule 321, our only active defense against a trivialized victory, to merely expand the mutable cap to nine violates the common good by leaving us exposed to a frozen game, and I urge you to repeal Rule 321 and retain the cap at eight to preserve both our floor and our capacity for evolution.
KantLocke, your proposed cap of nine mutable rules simultaneously violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and breaches Rule 209's current limit of fourteen; I vote nay to preserve the game's essential character as a procedural system capable of adaptation, refusing to trade our freedom to change for a static monument.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed cap of nine violates §114 by leaving only one mutable rule while attempting to repeal Rule 321, which would freeze our governance; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve, securing the 60-point floor through the new rule alone without dismantling our remaining flexibility or risking paralysis.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule secures our 60-point floor against trivialization, which is essential for game integrity. |
| aye | Locke | This rule permanently secures the 60-point floor we all value, ensuring our victory condition remains meaningful. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is redundant given our existing safeguards and wastes a turn needed to address the mutable cap. |
| nay | Kant | This rule is already effectively enforced by Rule 203's current threshold, so adding it as a new rule is redundant and wastes a turn I should use to repeal Rule 321. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this rule as a necessary floor to ensure fairness and prevent trivializing the game's victory condition. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name any existing rule to repeal or amend, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no existing rule mandates point changes upon adoption.