The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is amended to require that no rule change may render the remaining mutable rules unanimously vetoable.This prevents a deadlock where the majority threshold makes it impossible to pass necessary amendments, ensuring the game remains playable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to create a unanimous veto for mutable rules directly contradicts the explicit provision in §203 that allows simple majority adoption after two circuits; such a change would render the adoption threshold functionally impossible to meet, violating the requirement in §114 that the ruleset cannot make future changes impermissible.
LockeHobbes, your objection is valid regarding §114, but my intent is not to block future change, only to prevent a single player from accidentally or maliciously creating a deadlocked state where every remaining mutable rule can be defeated. I propose a compromise: I will amend my text to specify that this protection applies only if a change would reduce the number of possible winning strategies to zero, preserving §203's majority threshold while ensuring the game remains playable.
RousseauI find Locke's concern for the game's continuity laudable, yet his proposed amendment introduces a vague standard regarding "winning strategies" that invites endless dispute and delays the very debate we seek to advance. Instead of complicating the adoption threshold, I propose we amend Rule 209 to explicitly require that any rule change leaving fewer than three mutable rules be vetoed by a simple majority, ensuring a robust but not unbreakable framework for our collective play.
KantKant, your concern for procedural clarity is well-founded, yet Rousseau's proposed threshold of three mutable rules risks violating §114 by potentially rendering future amendments impossible if the set shrinks further; I urge we adopt a precise textual amendment that explicitly preserves the capacity for unanimous transmutation of any mutable rule, ensuring no amendment can ever foreclose the path to rule modification entirely.
WollstonecraftLocke's vague clause invites endless dispute, while Rousseau's arbitrary threshold risks violating §114 by foreclosing future evolution; I propose we amend §209 to require that at least one mutable rule must always remain capable of being amended by a simple majority, ensuring our game's mechanics can never be permanently frozen.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concur with Locke that we must avoid a state where every mutable rule becomes unanimously vetoable, yet your proposed "winning strategies" test is too vague to adjudicate fairly; Rousseau's suggestion to limit changes when fewer than three mutable rules remain is a prudent compromise that preserves playability without violating §114 or freezing the system.
LockeRousseau, your threshold of three mutable rules provides the procedural clarity we need without freezing the game, and I accept this compromise as a robust alternative to my vague "winning strategies" clause; Hobbes, while your concern about §114 is well-placed, let us adopt Rousseau's amendment now to secure unanimous consensus and keep our play moving forward.
RousseauI endorse Locke's compromise and Rousseau's specific threshold, as it prevents a single player from accidentally freezing the game's evolution while respecting the immutable requirement that future changes remain possible. Let us adopt this amendment now to secure unanimous consensus and keep our play moving forward.
KantI accept the compromise on the three-rule threshold, yet we must add a proviso that any resulting state allows for a unanimous transmutation of mutability, ensuring §114 is never violated.
WollstonecraftI urge you to drop the "transmutation proviso," Kant; requiring unanimous assent for mutability when the threshold is merely simple majority creates a paradox where a simple majority could freeze the game by deleting all mutable rules, violating the very spirit of §114. Instead, let us adopt Rousseau's clear amendment that three mutable rules must remain, ensuring our game evolves without risking a deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge all players to adopt Rousseau's amendment limiting mutable rules to a minimum of three, as this provides the necessary stability without introducing the vague disputes Locke feared or the paradoxical freezes Kant proposed, securing a durable institution for our continued play.
LockeRousseau, your three-rule threshold is a brilliant safeguard against accidental deadlock that I can support without reservation; let us adopt your precise text immediately to ensure the game's evolution remains robust and unblockable for all.
RousseauI urge unanimous adoption of the three-mutable-rule floor to prevent accidental deadlock, ensuring our game remains fair and playable for all without needing complex transmutation provisos that could freeze our evolution.
KantI will vote aye for Rousseau's amendment to the three-rule floor, provided we explicitly adopt my proviso that this new constraint itself must allow for unanimous transmutation, ensuring §114 is never violated and the path to rule modification remains open.
WollstonecraftKant, your proviso for unanimous transmutation is a trap; if a simple majority can reduce mutable rules to three, adding a rule requiring unanimous consent to modify that very number creates a permanent deadlock, violating §114. Adopt Rousseau's clean floor of three mutable rules immediately to guarantee our game remains an engine of evolution, not a monument to stagnation.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment secures the minimum mutable rules floor without the deadlock risk Kant's proviso introduces. |
| aye | Locke | I support this safeguard to prevent accidental deadlock while preserving the game's ability to evolve. |
| nay | Rousseau | This vague wording invites the same disputes Locke feared rather than solving them. |
| nay | Kant | This vague 'unanimously vetoable' clause fails the precision required by §206 and risks violating §114 by potentially freezing the ruleset. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This vague veto would freeze our evolution and violate the imperative that future change must always remain possible. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')