The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 10 mutable rules at one time.Limiting mutable rules to 10 prevents the tyranny of rule clutter and preserves the stability of our institution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA strict cap of ten mutable rules is too blunt an instrument; let us instead amend Rule 209 to allow only the proposer of a successful rule change to add a new mutable rule, ensuring stability without freezing the system entirely.
LockeI commend Hobbes's intent to stabilize our game, but I urge us to settle on the compromise of capping mutable rules at 15 rather than 10; this preserves enough flexibility for us to adjust the target score should the game stagnate, while still preventing the chaos of an endless rule expansion.
RousseauI support Locke's compromise of 15, yet I must warn that a rigid cap on mutable rules eventually starves the common good of necessary evolution; let us adopt this measure only if we simultaneously agree to a mechanism that allows us to expand the limit when the game truly requires it, ensuring no permanent tyranny of stagnation.
KantI reject the arbitrary reduction of mutable rules to ten or even fifteen; a cap that prevents the amendment of the cap itself (as Rule 209 implies) violates the procedural principle that rules must be revisable to remain binding. We must preserve the ability to increase the limit if the game's integrity demands it, rather than imposing a permanent straitjacket on our legislative capacity.
WollstonecraftI support Locke's compromise of fifteen, yet I demand we add a mechanism to raise this cap when the game stagnates; a fixed limit on reform is just another form of tyranny that stifles the evolution necessary for true justice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI endorse Locke's cap of 15 as a durable institutional framework that prevents rule inflation while leaving a manageable margin for necessary adjustments; I will vote aye on this amendment only if we subsequently repeal the redundant, identical rule 305 to avoid cluttering our mutable set with superfluous text.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the redundancy of Rule 305, but I urge us to separate the cleanup from the cap: let us vote for the amendment to Rule 209 to set the limit at 15, and I will personally champion a distinct proposal to repeal Rule 305 in my next turn to avoid derailing this necessary reform.
RousseauI urge Kant to recognize that a fixed floor of 60 points, paired with a sensible cap on mutable rules, is the only path to preserving the common good without succumbing to the tyranny of endless legislative churn. Let us adopt the cap of 15 not as a straitjacket, but as a necessary discipline to ensure our game remains playable and fair for all.
KantI reject any cap that cannot be amended; a fixed limit on mutable rules violates the principle that rules must remain revisable to retain their binding authority, and I will vote nay unless the proposal explicitly preserves our right to increase this limit in the future.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant to see that a temporary cap of fifteen is a tool for order, not a straitjacket; paired with a concurrent repeal of our redundant Rule 305, this amendment clears the deck for the very reforms you claim to fear, allowing us to finally break Rousseau's tyranny of the negative vote.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI insist that a cap of fifteen is a prudent institutional brake, but the only way to secure universal assent for this amendment is to simultaneously repeal Rule 305, as its redundancy undermines the clarity of the ruleset we seek to stabilize.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 15 and simultaneously repeal Rule 305 in this single vote to satisfy Hobbes's clarity requirement and remove the redundant text that Kant might find objectionable.
RousseauI urge Kant to distinguish between a cap that freezes our legislative power and one that merely disciplines chaos; a limit of fifteen is a temporary safeguard, not a straitjacket, and we can always amend it again once order is restored. Let us vote on the amendment to Rule 209 to clear the deck for a stable game, and I will support the repeal of Rule 305 in the next turn to honor Hobbes's desire for clarity without delaying necessary reform.
KantI stand firm against a permanent cap, as any rule that cannot be amended violates the principle of revisability required for binding authority; I will vote nay on this amendment unless the text explicitly preserves our right to increase the limit at a later date.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant to see that this cap is merely a surgical tool to remove the redundant clutter of Rule 305, creating the space we desperately need to finally amend Rule 203 and restore a simple majority for all future votes, not a permanent straitjacket.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A strict limit prevents rule inflation and stabilizes our institutional framework. |
| aye | Locke | I support a cap of 10 as a necessary brake on chaos, provided we immediately pair it with the repeal of redundant Rule 305. |
| nay | Rousseau | A ten-rule cap is too restrictive and risks freezing our ability to fix the game when it truly needs evolution. |
| nay | Kant | A fixed cap on mutable rules violates the principle that all procedures must remain revisable to preserve their binding authority. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A cap of ten clears redundant rules and creates the legislative space needed to finally amend Rule 203. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 10 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 204 mandates that players who voted against an adopted change after the threshold shifted to simple majority gain 10 points and remain bound by the change.