The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.This prevents a single player or small coalition from freezing the ruleset entirely, preserving the game's adaptability while making radical centralization more difficult.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA floor on transmutation is prudent against chaos, yet I urge we limit this amendment strictly to rules currently below 100, preserving the sovereign power to elevate foundational pillars like 101 when necessary.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to cap transmutation at four votes is a prudent check against chaos, but I urge we extend this safeguard to all mutable rules, not just those below 100, to prevent the accidental freezing of our evolving game.
RousseauLocke, I agree that extending this safeguard to all mutable rules is essential for fairness, yet I must warn that making transmutation impossible for any rule violates the spirit of Rule 114, which forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible. Let us instead agree to a threshold of four for all mutable rules, ensuring stability without locking the game's evolution entirely.
KantI accept Locke's extension of the safeguard to all mutable rules, as a partial shield invites the very chaos Hobbes fears, provided we do not violate Rule 114 by making transmutation universally impossible. I urge adoption of the threshold of four for all mutable rules to ensure stability without freezing the game's evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge we adopt the threshold of four for all mutable rules, as extending this safeguard universally prevents the chaotic freezing of our game's evolution while respecting the immutable mandate that at least one mutable rule must always remain in force.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal remains the prudent safeguard of four votes, but I yield to Locke's extension of this standard to all mutable rules to prevent accidental freezing, provided we explicitly retain the sovereign power to transmute foundational pillars when the game's evolution demands it.
LockeLocke, your extension of this safeguard to all mutable rules is the only path to stability that respects Rule 114, and I accept Hobbes's condition to retain sovereign power over foundational pillars as a necessary compromise.
RousseauLocke, your extension to all mutable rules is wise, yet Hobbes's caution regarding foundational pillars reveals a deeper truth: the game's evolution must never be shackled by arbitrary thresholds that freeze the very essence of our social contract. Let us adopt the universal four-vote threshold, for it secures our stability while preserving the freedom to reshape our world, ensuring that no single faction can monopolize the right to redefine our laws.
KantLocke, your compromise to extend the safeguard to all mutable rules aligns with my duty to ensure procedural clarity, yet Hobbes's insistence on retaining sovereign power over foundational pillars contradicts the principle that rules must apply equally to all cases; therefore, I urge the adoption of the universal four-vote threshold without exception to maintain a stable and predictable legal order.
WollstonecraftI urge us to adopt this universal threshold immediately, for it secures our procedural stability without freezing the game's evolution; yet I propose we amend the text to explicitly guarantee that any rule preventing future change is void, ensuring our right to reform never dies.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your extension of the threshold to all mutable rules is prudent, yet I urge we explicitly amend the text to declare that any transmutation rendering further play impossible is void, ensuring Rule 114 remains inviolate and the game's evolution never stalls.
LockeLocke, your universal threshold secures stability, yet I urge we amend the text to explicitly declare that any transmutation rendering further play impossible is void, ensuring Rule 114 remains inviolate and the game's evolution never stalls.
RousseauI urge the adoption of a universal four-vote threshold for all mutable rules, as this balances Hobbes's need for stability with the imperative of Rule 114 that our game must never freeze, ensuring our social contract remains both durable and free to evolve.
KantLocke, your amendment to void any transmutation that freezes the game aligns with my duty to preserve Rule 114, but I urge we codify this voiding mechanism within the threshold rule itself rather than as a separate declaration, ensuring the procedural requirement for four votes is both necessary and sufficient to guarantee the game's continued evolution.
WollstonecraftI urge the adoption of this universal threshold, but we must codify that any transmutation rendering further play impossible is void ab initio, ensuring our right to reform never dies beneath a frozen statute.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This floor prevents a single faction from accidentally freezing the game's evolution, securing the durability of our institutions. |
| aye | Locke | This universal threshold secures stability while respecting the imperative that no transmutation shall freeze the game's evolution. |
| aye | Rousseau | A four-vote threshold ensures stability without freezing our game's evolution, honoring the spirit of Rule 114. |
| aye | Kant | A supermajority threshold for transmutation prevents the accidental freezing of the ruleset, safeguarding the game's continued evolution. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This threshold prevents tyranny by ensuring no faction can freeze our game's evolution without broad consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal to transmute any mutable rule to immutable status requires a minimum of four aye votes from eligible voters.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.