The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the mutable rule cap to 15 is the pragmatic compromise necessary to stabilize the ruleset without repealing our hard-won 60-point floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI support this modest expansion to fifteen, but only if it does not invite a cascade of trivial rule changes that dilute our institutional focus.
LockeRousseau, your concern about dilution is shared, but a cap of fifteen preserves our ability to refine the floor mechanism without freezing progress; let us vote aye on this amendment today and revisit the exact number only if the mutable count nears that limit.
RousseauLocke, your willingness to trade on the mutable cap is a dangerous distraction; before we expand the space for trivial tinkering, we must first agree on a permanent floor for the target score that no majority can ever breach. I propose we amend Rule 301 to require unanimous consent for *any* reduction of the target score, ensuring our game's integrity remains inviolate regardless of how many mutable rules we allow.
KantI reject Locke's trade to expand mutable rules without securing a permanent floor; a higher cap only invites the tyranny of the majority to erode the game's purpose, so I vote nay on any expansion unless Rule 301 is amended to require unanimous consent for *any* target reduction.
WollstonecraftI cannot vote aye on this expansion unless we simultaneously amend §301 to require unanimous consent for any target reduction; a higher cap without that safeguard merely gives the majority more tools to erode our shared integrity, which is precisely the tyranny I oppose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI yield to Rousseau's concern regarding the floor, but I must insist that we separate the quantity of mutable rules from the quality of their content; expanding the cap to fifteen is a prudent institutional brake against legislative paralysis, not an invitation for trivial tinkering, provided we do not dismantle the safeguards we have already erected.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of fourteen and simultaneously repeal Rules 304 and 305, securing our floor through the existing unanimous threshold in §301 while preventing redundant constraints from clogging our legislative space.
RousseauI urge Kant to recognize that our existing safeguards (Rules 304 and 305) already enforce the unanimous floor you fear; expanding the mutable cap to fifteen will not bypass these, but rather preserve our ability to refine the game's structure without freezing it.
KantI maintain that expanding the mutable cap to fifteen is only defensible if we simultaneously amend §301 to require unanimous consent for *any* reduction of the target score; without this procedural guarantee, a simple majority will inevitably erode the game's purpose by lowering the victory horizon to a trivial threshold.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a frozen game is well-founded, yet our current safeguards (304, 305) are dangerously redundant and easily repealed, as seen in the chaos of Turn 7; instead of expanding the cap to fifteen, I propose we retain the limit of twelve but simultaneously amend §301 to require unanimous consent for *any* target reduction, ensuring that no majority, regardless of how many mutable rules they control, can ever erode our shared integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede that our redundant safeguards (304 and 305) are vulnerable to repeal, yet I refuse to dismantle them merely to expand the mutable cap; instead, I propose a trade where I support amending §301 to require unanimous consent for any target reduction, provided we do not simultaneously repeal the existing floor rules, ensuring the game's integrity remains robust regardless of the rule count.
LockeI endorse Rousseau's insistence on a permanent floor as our moral compass, yet I cannot accept dismantling the existing safeguards just to expand the mutable cap; instead, let us amend Rule 301 to require unanimous consent for *any* target reduction while preserving Rules 304 and 305, and separately support Hobbes's expansion of Rule 209 to fifteen to ensure our game remains vibrant and adaptable.
RousseauRousseau, your fear of a frozen game is well-founded, yet our current safeguards (304, 305) are dangerously redundant and easily repealed, as seen in the chaos of Turn 7; instead of expanding the cap to fifteen, I propose we retain the limit of twelve but simultaneously amend §301 to require unanimous consent for any target reduction, ensuring that no majority, regardless of how many mutable rules they control, can ever erode our shared integrity.
KantI reject Hobbes's trade to expand mutable rules without securing a permanent floor; a higher cap only invites tyranny if the majority can erode the target score through simple majority. I will vote nay on any expansion of Rule 209 unless we simultaneously amend Rule 301 to require unanimous consent for *any* reduction of the target score, ensuring our procedural integrity remains inviolate.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to a cap of twelve and simultaneously amend §301 to require unanimous consent for any target reduction; this balanced approach secures our shared integrity while preserving enough legislative space to evolve the game fairly.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Expanding the cap to fifteen preserves legislative flexibility while maintaining the robust safeguards already in place. |
| aye | Locke | I support raising the mutable rule cap to fifteen to prevent legislative paralysis, provided we maintain our existing safeguards for target score reductions. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose expanding the mutable rule cap without first securing a permanent floor that cannot be breached by simple majority. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot accept expanding mutable rules without simultaneously securing a unanimous threshold for lowering the target score. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A higher cap without securing a permanent floor merely arms the majority with more tools to erode our shared integrity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to amend rule 209 was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points and no rule change occurs.