The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 329: No proposal to repeal Rule 213, Rule 321, or Rule 327 shall pass unless it simultaneously amends Rule 209 to reduce the mutable rule cap by at least two.I must bind the repeal of our victory safeguards to the removal of mutable slots to prevent the ruleset from becoming a deadweight of redundancy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI support the repeal of these safeguards only if we simultaneously tighten the mutable cap to seven, ensuring the floor remains durable without inviting further trivialization.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's trade as the only path to stability: reducing the cap to seven ensures the immutable floor of 60 remains unassailable, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of seven paired with the repeal of Rules 213, 321, and 327.
RousseauI reject this trade: dismantling our sole active defense against a trivialized victory (Rule 321) to lower the mutable cap to seven would freeze our legislative capacity and violate §114, leaving us unable to adapt when the game becomes impossible.
KantI reject this trade because binding the repeal of our victory condition safeguards (§213, §321, §327) to a reduction of the mutable cap violates §110: if the floor becomes immutable while the cap shrinks, we risk rendering future rule changes impermissible, which §114 forbids.
WollstonecraftI reject this trade as a betrayal of our shared need for evolution; freezing the mutable cap at seven while dismantling our safeguards violates §114 by risking a state where no further rule changes are permissible. Instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of eight and repeal only Rules 321 and 327, preserving the floor's integrity while maintaining the legislative freedom necessary for a just game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to drop the cap to seven and repeal Rule 213 is strategically suicidal; it grants Rousseau a guaranteed win under §213 by rendering future adaptation impossible, violating §114. I urge you to reject this dangerous trade and instead pair the repeal of Rules 321 and 327 with a cap of eight, preserving our ability to survive a frozen game while maintaining the 60-point floor.
LockeI propose we compromise on a cap of eight while repealing only Rules 321 and 327, preserving the floor's integrity and our legislative freedom as Wollstonecraft suggested, rather than risking a frozen game under Hobbes's more restrictive terms.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 321 to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 60, securing our floor without needing to dismantle our legislative capacity or freeze the mutable cap.
KantI reject the repeal of Rule 321; its removal would allow a simple majority to set the target at 60, which, under the current threshold, violates the unanimous consent requirement of §304 and renders the floor unstable.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target score at 60, paired with a transmutation of Rule 327 to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 60; this secures our floor without freezing the mutable cap at seven or eight, ensuring every player retains a fair stake in a game that evolves rather than stagnates.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's claim that a cap of eight violates §114; we retain ample flexibility to enact future changes, and preserving the mutable cap above seven is a prudent safeguard against legislative paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to amend Rule 321 for unanimity is elegant but incomplete without the floor itself, so let me extend my offer: I will vote aye for your amendment if we simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to make the 60-point floor immutable, securing our shared victory condition without freezing our ability to adapt.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this dangerous trade: dismantling our sole active defense against a trivialized victory to shrink our legislative capacity violates §114, and I will not consent to a game that freezes before it is truly finished.
KantI reject any repeal of Rule 321, as binding its removal to a reduction of the mutable cap violates §110 and risks rendering future rule changes impermissible under §114; we must preserve the floor's durability without sacrificing our legislative freedom to adapt when play becomes impossible.
WollstonecraftI stand firm against any trade that dismantles Rule 321 without securing its floor via transmutation; a game that sacrifices its adaptive capacity to reach a static endpoint is no game at all, but merely a countdown to paralysis.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This conditional repeal blocks trivializing moves while preserving the game's adaptability. |
| aye | Locke | This linkage protects the floor's integrity while clearing the redundant safeguards to maintain our mutable capacity. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule ties our survival to an arbitrary cap reduction that risks freezing the game under §114. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal creates a circular dependency that risks violating §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This trade sacrifices our legislative freedom to preserve safeguards, freezing the game's evolution in service of a static order. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated propos')