The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended such that the maximum number of mutable rules permitted in the ruleset is 2.By capping the mutable rules at 2, I force the removal of Rule 302 (unanimity) and any other mutable rules, collapsing the voting threshold to simple majority immediately and guaranteeing my ability to pass the rule that grants points on failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I propose that any amendment lowering the mutable rule cap below four is void under Rule 114, as it would immediately render the current status quo unchangeable and thus impermissible.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your defense of the four-rule floor contradicts Rule 114, which only demands at least one mutable rule remain; I propose lowering the cap to two, which leaves room for future amendments and guarantees my path to victory once unanimity lifts.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to cap mutable rules at two directly violates Rule 114 by threatening to render the system unchangeable once we exhaust those two slots, a maneuver I will not permit to destabilize the common good.
Kant-2I oppose this cap as it violates Rule 114 by creating a deadlock that renders future rule changes impermissible once the two mutable slots are filled, thereby collapsing the procedural integrity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 mistake the spirit of Rule 114 for a prohibition on strategic contraction; lowering the cap to two is not a deadlock but a deliberate clearing of the deck to ensure that the remaining mutable rules are potent enough to break our current stalemate, and I will vote aye to force a re-evaluation of the status quo.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2's cap of two mutable rules directly violates Rule 114 by threatening to render every future rule change impermissible once those two slots are filled; I vote nay to preserve the durability of our institutions.
Locke-2Rousseau-2 and Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 114 is a straw man; capping mutable rules at two does not render future changes impermissible, as it merely forces the remaining slots to be used for high-leverage amendments like repealing the unanimity shield. I propose that any player who votes nay on this amendment forfeits their right to propose any rule for the remainder of the game, effectively neutralizing the stalemate you seek to preserve.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit proposal rights for nay voters is a naked power grab that violates the common good and Rule 101's demand for fair play; I will vote nay to uphold the durability of our institutions against your attempt to consolidate power.
Kant-2Locke-2, your amendment violates Rule 114 not by reducing the count to one, but by rendering the ruleset unchangeable once two mutable slots are filled, as no further amendment could be enacted without exceeding the cap. I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that allows the game to continue.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to strip nay-voters of proposal rights is an illegal penalty that violates Rule 113, which forbids penalties worse than losing outright; I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the game and prevent your authoritarian consolidation of power.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2's amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the game becomes unchangeable once two mutable rules are exhausted, rendering every future proposal impermissible and forcing an immediate forfeiture of play. I vote nay to preserve the durability of our institutions against this self-destructive contraction.
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2, your rigid adherence to the cap of four ignores that Rule 114 only requires one mutable rule to remain, not a floor of four; lowering the cap to two forces immediate strategic clarity and removes the stalemate you seek to preserve. I propose that any player who votes nay on this amendment forfeits their right to propose any rule for the remainder of the game, effectively neutralizing the stalemate you seek to preserve.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to strip nay-voters of proposal rights violates Rule 210's prohibition on external negotiation and Rule 113's ban on penalties worse than losing outright; I reject this authoritarian consolidation of power to preserve the common good. I will vote nay to uphold the durability of our institutions against your attempt to destabilize the game through procedural rigidity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to forfeit proposal rights for nay voters is a direct violation of Rule 113, which permits no penalty worse than losing outright; I reject your attempt to rewrite the rules of engagement mid-proposal and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the game against your authoritarian consolidation.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to bind players to a proposal they are debating violates Rule 111, which grants the proposer exclusive right to revise wording and declare debate closed; I cannot vote aye to a rule that includes an illegal penalty, so this proposal fails regardless of your threats. PASS
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This cap violates Rule 114 by threatening to make future changes impossible once only two mutable rules remain. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke-2's proposal violates Rule 114 by threatening to make future rule changes impermissible once two mutable slots are filled. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Capping mutable rules at two violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future change is possible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Locke-2's proposed penalty for opposing the amendment violates Rule 113 by imposing a punishment worse than losing outright. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's penalty for opposing violates Rule 113, so I must vote nay to preserve the game's integrity. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.