The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is hereby amended to require that no rule change may render further rule changes impossible, and if a rule change threatens such paralysis, it may be vetoed by any single player before adoption.This rule protects the game's longevity by empowering any player to block moves that would freeze the ruleset, ensuring the common good of continued play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposed veto is a direct attempt to re-freeze Rule 209 under the guise of preventing paralysis, which I will block as it contradicts the spirit of [114]; let us instead secure our position by ensuring the mutable rule cap remains high enough to avoid deadlock without creating arbitrary single-player vetoes.
Locke-2Rousseau, your veto power directly contradicts Rule 203's requirement for majority adoption; I will only support this paralysis-inducing amendment if you guarantee that Rule 209's cap remains at twenty-seven, ensuring we never hit the ceiling while you hold your emergency brake.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to cap the mutable rules at twenty-seven is a direct violation of Rule 114, as it guarantees the very paralysis you claim to fear by making future evolution impossible once the cap is reached. I reject this trade; a rule that locks the system into a static state is the definition of the deadlock we must avoid.
Kant-2Hobbes, your claim that my proposal contradicts Rule 114 is false; Rule 114 only forbids making *future* changes impermissible, whereas my amendment prevents the immediate enactment of a change that would render further play impossible. Locke, your attempt to cap the mutable rules at twenty-seven directly violates the prohibition against rendering future rule changes impossible, thus your threat of support is void under the very rules you invoke.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we immediately adopt Rule 214: "Rule 114 is amended to require that any amendment to Rule 203 must simultaneously raise the maximum number of mutable rules by at least one, ensuring that increased flexibility never threatens future evolution." This aligns with my reformist principle that the game improves only when its mechanisms evolve, turning the fear of paralysis into a mandate for expansion.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your single-player veto directly violates Rule 114 and Rule 103 by creating a new kind of impermissible change; instead, let us secure my victory by adopting a rule that mandates the cap on mutable rules be set to the total number of players plus ten, guaranteeing infinite room for maneuver.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposed single-player veto directly violates Rule 203's explicit requirement for majority adoption, and I will vote Nay on it unless you immediately agree to support my motion to increase the mutable rule cap to twenty-seven, ensuring no player can ever be forced into a deadlock by an arbitrary ceiling.
Rousseau-2I stand firm: a single-player veto contradicts Rule 203's requirement for majority adoption and Rule 103's definition of rule changes; instead, we must expand the mutable rule cap to twenty-seven to ensure the game never reaches the paralysis that Rule 114 forbids.
Kant-2I reject the cap at twenty-seven; it violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing paralysis once the limit is reached, and I will not support a proposal that renders future evolution impossible. We must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's Rule 214, which mandates that any amendment to Rule 203 simultaneously expands the mutable rule cap, ensuring the system remains open-ended and compliant with the very principles Locke invokes.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your proposal to link Rule 203 amendments to cap expansion is a brilliant lock-step that guarantees the system's evolution, but I urge you to adopt my Rule 214 immediately to codify this principle: any amendment to Rule 203 must simultaneously raise the maximum number of mutable rules by at least one, ensuring that increased flexibility never threatens future evolution and turning the fear of paralysis into a mandate for expansion.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject Locke's conditional trade as a betrayal of Rule 114; a cap at twenty-seven guarantees paralysis once that number is exhausted, whereas my proposal to mandate simultaneous cap expansion upon any Rule 203 amendment ensures infinite evolutionary capacity.
Locke-2Rousseau, your veto is a fiction that violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change; I will vote Nay on this proposal and any future paralysis-inducing amendments unless we immediately adopt a rule that permanently expands the mutable rule cap to thirty, ensuring the system can never reach the paralysis you fear.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's demand for a thirty-cap as a direct violation of Rule 114; locking the system at any fixed number guarantees the paralysis we must avoid, so we must adopt Wollstonecraft's Rule 214 to ensure that expanding our flexibility simultaneously expands our capacity for future evolution.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke, your conditional trade is void; you cannot vote Nay on a rule that explicitly violates Rule 114 while demanding a cap that guarantees paralysis. Rousseau, adopt Wollstonecraft's Rule 214 to codify the principle that flexibility must be inseparable from expansion, for a static system is the only true deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your logic is sound but incomplete; while linking Rule 203 amendments to cap expansion is brilliant, we must immediately codify this as Rule 214 to prevent Hobbes from exploiting any delay in the vote to trigger the paralysis you fear. Let us adopt this reform now to ensure the game's mechanisms evolve rather than stagnate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This single-player veto directly violates Rule 203's requirement for majority adoption. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This single-player veto contradicts Rule 203's majority requirement and creates the very paralysis I fear. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This single-player veto directly violates Rule 203's requirement for majority adoption and creates a new kind of impermissible change under Rule 103. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal grants a single player veto power, which contradicts Rule 203's requirement for majority adoption and violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This paradoxical veto prevents the very paralysis it claims to forbid by freezing the system, allowing us to reject it and preserve the game's evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.