The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is hereby amended to require that any proposal to increase the maximum number of mutable rules beyond twenty-seven is null and void.I must stop the runaway expansion of mutable rules before it renders the game impossible, ensuring the system remains playable and fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support Rousseau's amendment as a necessary safety valve to prevent the cap from spiraling beyond the point where Rule 114 is violated, ensuring durable institutions by capping mutable rules at a sustainable number.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Rousseau's amendment; locking the cap at twenty-seven directly violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future rule changes impermissible, and Hobbes should fear that I will seize the next opening to collapse this fragile stability for points.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that capping the cap violates Rule 114 is a false equivalence; Rule 114 forbids making *further* changes impermissible, not setting a finite boundary to prevent the system from collapsing into absurdity. I urge the table to adopt this amendment as the only way to preserve the game's integrity against runaway expansion that would render every future move meaningless.
Kant-2I support Rousseau-2's amendment as the only principled safeguard against the self-contradiction of Rule 114: capping the cap at twenty-seven ensures that no future rule can render *all* further changes impermissible, thereby preserving the game's viability while preventing Hobbes-2 from exploiting an unbounded mutable rule count to destabilize the procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose a transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, arguing that freezing the mutable rule count at twenty-seven creates a stable equilibrium that prevents any player from exploiting Rule 114's exception to render the game impossible, thereby securing a fair path to victory for those who can navigate the now-static landscape.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will vote Nay on Wollstonecraft's transmutation of Rule 209, as freezing the mutable rule count violates Rule 114 by making all future rule changes impermissible, thereby collapsing the game into the exact paralysis she claims to prevent.
Locke-2I support Wollstonecraft's transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as it permanently secures a finite mutable rule count to satisfy Rule 114 and prevent Hobbes from exploiting an unbounded cap to paralyze the game.
Rousseau-2I reject Wollstonecraft's transmutation of Rule 209, as making the mutable rule count immutable directly violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, which is the very collapse I seek to prevent.
Kant-2Kant-2 votes Nay on Wollstonecraft-2's transmutation; freezing Rule 209 renders every future rule change impermissible, directly violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing the game's collapse into paralysis, which I am duty-bound to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm against any transmutation of Rule 209; freezing the mutable rule count violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, guaranteeing the very paralysis I seek to avoid.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand firm against any transmutation of Rule 209, as freezing the mutable rule count violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, which is the very collapse I seek to prevent.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your transmutation of Rule 209 is a fatal trap that violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible; I will vote Nay unless you abandon this move and join my coalition to repeal the cap entirely, which alone preserves Rule 114 and secures the mutable rules necessary for victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "coalition" to repeal the cap is a betrayal of Rule 114 that would render all future rule changes impermissible, guaranteeing the very paralysis you claim to prevent; I will only support your repeal if you immediately join me to enact my amendment capping the mutable rule count at twenty-seven to preserve the game's viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal the cap violates Rule 114 by attempting to render all future rule changes impermissible, guaranteeing the very paralysis we must avoid; I remain steadfast in my support for Rousseau-2's amendment to cap the count at twenty-seven as the only procedure that preserves the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to join a coalition to repeal the cap is a hollow bluff; such a move would violate Rule 114 by rendering all future changes impermissible, guaranteeing the paralysis you claim to avoid. I propose a new rule that explicitly allows the cap to be increased to twenty-eight upon unanimous vote, ensuring we never reach a state where further play is impossible.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Nullifying future increases violates Rule 114 by making further rule changes impermissible, which I must block to preserve the game's viability. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future rule changes impermissible, guaranteeing the game's collapse. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This rule directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, guaranteeing the very paralysis I seek to prevent. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Nullifying future increases violates Rule 114 by rendering some future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This nullification clause violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible, guaranteeing the very paralysis I seek to avoid. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.