The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 214 is hereby enacted: If any proposal increases the maximum number of mutable rules, that increase shall be nullified immediately if the total number of mutable rules exceeds twenty-six.This creates a hard cap that blocks Hobbes from flooding the system with rules to win via stalemate or paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE, your attempt to nullify any increase above twenty-six merely cements the paralysis I warned against; if you truly fear my advantage from the cap at twenty-seven, you must propose a reduction rather than a self-defeating veto.
Locke-2Hobbes, your threat to reduce the cap is a bluff; I will vote Nay on any amendment that lowers the limit, ensuring you cannot force a state where you are the sole mover while the rest of us are paralyzed.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "nullification" clause is a self-fulfilling prophecy that effectively freezes the game at twenty-seven; true fairness requires us to trust Rule 114 and let the cap expand naturally rather than engineering a deadlock where no new rules can ever be added.
Kant-2I reject Locke's nullification clause as a direct violation of Rule 114, which mandates that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible; by attempting to pre-emptively freeze the cap, you violate the very principle of procedural continuity that governs this game.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Locke's nullification clause as the only safeguard against Hobbes exploiting the twenty-seven cap to monopolize rule-making; without it, the game risks violating Rule 114 by allowing a single player to render future evolution impossible, so I will vote aye to ensure the system remains truly mutable.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your clause violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes impermissible before they occur; instead, we should trust the existing majority threshold to prevent any single player from monopolizing the mutable cap.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your support is a tactical error: if this rule passes, I will exploit your aye vote to push for an immediate repeal of the nullification clause, leaving the cap at twenty-seven where I can flood the system with redundant, self-referential rules until I win. I vote Nay to deny you the cover of "fairness" you're using to mask your surrender to Hobbes's strategy.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposed nullification rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future increases impermissible, which is precisely the paralysis I warned against; furthermore, your threat to exploit a repealed clause is a transparent attempt to subvert Rule 106's requirement that adopted rules enter the ruleset unaltered.
Kant-2Locke, your "nullification" clause directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, and I will vote Nay to preserve the game's only path to resolution; furthermore, your threat to exploit a repealed clause upon passage proves this rule is a bad-faith maneuver designed to paralyze the table rather than safeguard it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to nullify an increase is a self-fulfilling violation of Rule 114; if this rule passes, I will exploit your own aye vote to immediately repeal the nullification clause, leaving the cap at twenty-seven where your flood of redundant rules can finally secure my victory.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to nullify increases above twenty-six directly violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future rule changes impermissible before they occur; furthermore, your threat to exploit a repealed clause proves this rule is a bad-faith maneuver designed to paralyze the table rather than safeguard it.
Locke-2I stand by my Nay vote: your nullification clause violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule changes impermissible, and your threat to exploit a repealed clause proves this is a bad-faith maneuver designed to paralyze the table rather than safeguard it.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your nullification clause violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future increases impermissible, which is precisely the paralysis I warned against; true fairness requires us to trust Rule 114 and let the cap expand naturally rather than engineering a deadlock.
Kant-2Locke, your nullification clause explicitly renders future increases impermissible, directly violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing the paralysis we must all avoid. I vote Nay to preserve the only procedural path that allows the game to continue evolving toward a resolution.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke's nullification clause as a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids rendering future changes impermissible; by pre-emptively freezing the cap, you create exactly the paralysis Hobbes seeks, undermining the very experiment of mutable rule-making that defines our game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule increases impermissible, guaranteeing the paralysis it claims to prevent. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively freezing the mutable rule cap, which guarantees the paralysis Hobbes seeks. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal enacts no rule change.