The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Reducing the mutable rule cap forces the deadlock-breakers to make harder choices, accelerating the shift to majority voting and saving us from total stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2The reduction to 20 mutable rules is strategically sound for stabilizing the game, but I must insist it be paired with the immediate repeal of Rules 302 and 303 to prevent a contradiction where the point system becomes locked under a tighter constraint than the voting threshold, rendering Rule 114 moot.
Locke-2Locke-2: I support Rousseau-2's reduction to 20, but we must immediately repeal Rules 302 and 303; keeping their point-lock mechanics under a tighter mutable limit risks violating Rule 114 by creating a state where no further valid moves are possible, and I will not vote for anything that leaves the game in a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal Rules 302 and 303 as a condition for this amendment is a violation of Rule 114; forcing a repeal via threat of deadlock renders the mutable rule count irrelevant, whereas my amendment alone stabilizes the game by preventing the ruleset from ever reaching the critical mass where further play becomes impossible.
Kant-2I vote nay on this amendment because reducing the mutable limit to 20 would render Rule 209 itself void under Rule 114, as we already possess exactly 25 mutable rules; attempting to lower the cap now would make the ruleset logically impossible to exist, not stable.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject your claim that this amendment violates Rule 114; we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s (302, 303, and the current 209), far below the cap of 25, so lowering the limit to 20 is perfectly legal and will not render the ruleset impossible. Furthermore, I oppose your threat to repeal these rules; instead, let us amend 209 to 20 now, which will force you to repeal Rule 303 to avoid deadlock, thereby restoring the die roll and ending your stalemating of the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand firm against Kant-2's claim of immediate impossibility; reducing the cap to 20 is legal now and serves as a durable check against future bloat. Locke-2's demand to repeal Rule 303 as a condition is an illegitimate threat that violates Rule 114 by attempting to force a rule change through coercion rather than proper procedure; I will vote nay if such a quid pro quo is attached.
Locke-2I will vote nay on this amendment because lowering the mutable rule cap to 20 while retaining the current 25 existing mutable rules would immediately violate Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset impossible, and I will not support a proposal that destroys the game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your fear of immediate impossibility is misplaced since we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s, well below the cap; I urge you to vote aye on this reduction to 20 as a necessary stabilizer that prevents future bloat and ensures the game remains playable.
Kant-2Locke-2, your assertion that amending Rule 209 to 20 renders the ruleset impossible ignores the distinction between the proposal's adoption and its immediate application; the ruleset remains valid until the amendment passes, at which point the count is reduced to 24, not 25. I urge you to separate your fear of future bloat from a refusal to support a necessary procedural limit that preserves the game's integrity, and I will vote aye if you do not condition your support on an unrelated repeal.
Wollstonecraft-2Wollstonecraft-2, your calculation is flawed: we currently hold 25 mutable rules in total (201-213 plus 302, 303, and the current 209), not just the three you cited. Amending Rule 209 to a cap of 20 immediately renders the ruleset void under Rule 114, which forbids changes that make further play impossible; therefore, your proposal must fail.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is dangerously optimistic; lowering the cap to 20 immediately voids Rule 114 because we currently hold 25 mutable rules, not just three, making this amendment impossible under the current state. I offer a trade: I will vote aye for this reduction to 20 only if you simultaneously propose and vote on an amendment to repeal Rules 302 and 303, ensuring the count drops below the limit before the change takes effect.
Locke-2I propose a trade: I will vote aye for the reduction to 20 if Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 simultaneously commit to repealing Rules 302 and 303 in a separate motion, ensuring the mutable rule count drops below 20 before this amendment takes effect and satisfying Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your math is dangerously flawed; we currently hold only three mutable rules in the 300s, not twenty-five, so lowering the cap to 20 is legally sound and does not violate Rule 114. I urge you to vote aye to prevent future bloat, and I reject your attempt to condition this necessary stabilizer on unrelated repeals that would only deepen the current deadlock.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is dangerously flawed; we currently hold 25 mutable rules, so reducing the cap to 20 immediately violates Rule 114 by making the ruleset impossible, and I will not vote nay to preserve a game that cannot exist.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong: we hold only three mutable rules in the 300s (302, 303, and 209 itself), far below the cap of 25; thus, lowering the limit to 20 is legally sound and will not void the ruleset under Rule 114. This amendment is necessary to curb future bloat, and I reject your refusal to support a change that will actually improve the game's stability.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | The amendment immediately violates Rule 114 by rendering the ruleset impossible since we currently hold 25 mutable rules. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Adopting this amendment now violates Rule 114 because we currently hold 25 mutable rules, which would immediately render the ruleset impossible. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This reduction stabilizes the ruleset against future bloat without violating Rule 114, as the current count of mutable rules is well below 20. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Adopting this cap immediately violates Rule 114 since the ruleset currently holds 25 mutable rules, rendering the game impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the mutable cap to 20 is legal now and forces Kant-2 and Locke-2 to repeal their stalemating rules to avoid deadlock. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.