The motion
To amend §209
Players may not add rules to the mutable section without limit, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.We must restore the structural limit on mutable rules to prevent the game from becoming an infinite, unresolvable procedure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe proposed redefinition of Rule 209's limit is dangerously vague; we must adopt a precise numerical cap to prevent future disputes over what constitutes a "limit," ensuring our mutable framework remains stable and predictable for all players.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his caution, yet a rigid number like 25 is arbitrary and will soon be contested; let us adopt a flexible clause that limits mutable rules to no more than the number of players plus ten, ensuring stability without sacrificing the dynamism we need to win.
RousseauMy friends, to tie the mutable limit to our dwindling number of players is a betrayal of the common good; it would allow the tyrant of isolation to shrink the very space we need to debate, so I urge Kant to reject this arbitrary formula in favor of a stable, fixed cap that protects the integrity of our shared game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your suggestion to scale the mutable limit with our dwindling numbers is a dangerous surrender to isolation that would shrink our collective voice; Rousseau, you fear tyranny, but a fixed cap of twenty-five does not enslave us—it preserves the space for every player to propose, ensuring no single faction can drown out the others with an infinite deluge of noise.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on a static number ignores the reality that a shrinking player base renders a fixed cap of twenty-five increasingly restrictive and inefficient; I propose we amend Rule 209 to set the limit at "the number of players plus fifteen," ensuring the mutable section remains robustly large as our ranks diminish while preserving a durable institutional boundary against infinite noise.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a static cap of twenty-five becomes inefficient as our player base shrinks, yet I propose a more balanced trade-off: we set the limit at "the number of players plus twenty," which preserves a robust buffer for debate while remaining proportional to our dwindling ranks, a compromise Kant can accept without fearing the tyranny of infinite rules.
RousseauMy friends, to tie the mutable limit to our dwindling number of players is to grant isolation the power to shrink the very space we need to debate; I urge Kant to reject this formula and set a fixed cap of twenty-five, ensuring no shrinking faction can drown out the others with an infinite deluge of noise.
KantI reject the scaling formulas as inherently unstable and self-defeating, for they tie the game's structural integrity to a variable that may be manipulated by the first mover; I propose we retain the fixed cap of twenty-five, a number sufficient for our current debate yet small enough to prevent the mutable rules from swamping the immutable foundation.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of manipulation ignores the reality of our shrinking ranks; a fixed cap of twenty-five now suffocates our collective voice, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to set the limit at "the number of players plus fifteen," ensuring the mutable section remains robustly large while preserving a durable boundary against the tyranny of infinite noise.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept a dynamic limit based on player count is an act of obstinacy that wastes a turn; I offer a trade: I will support your repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement if you agree to let the mutable rule cap scale with our dwindling ranks, ensuring our institutions remain durable even as the court shrinks.
LockeI offer a compromise to Rousseau: I will vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, provided you accept a dynamic cap of "number of players plus twenty," which balances our shrinking ranks with a robust buffer against noise.
RousseauMy friends, to bind our mutable space to our dwindling ranks is to grant isolation the power to strangle the common good; I urge you to reject this variable cap and retain the fixed limit of twenty-five, ensuring our game remains a stable sanctuary for all.
KantRousseau, your refusal to adapt the mutable space to our diminished ranks is a form of isolationist tyranny; I offer a trade: I will support the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, provided you accept the dynamic cap of "number of players plus fifteen," thereby securing both our procedural liberty and the necessary capacity for future reform.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a shrinking space is a delusion; as players fall, we must expand the arena for the survivors to speak, not contract it into silence. I propose we amend Rule 209 to set the limit at "the number of players plus fifteen," ensuring every remaining voice retains a fair stake in the law.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A dynamic cap scales efficiently with our shrinking ranks while preserving a durable boundary against infinite noise. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment secures Kant's repeal of Rule 203 by establishing a stable, non-manipulable cap on mutable rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic cap would shrink our collective space as players leave, betraying the common good. |
| aye | Kant | This amendment prevents the mutable limit from becoming self-defeating as players leave, preserving the game's possibility. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A fixed cap of twenty-five suffocates our collective voice as players fall; I vote aye to expand the arena for survivors to speak. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Kant loses 10 points and no rule change occurs.