The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to decrease the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-five.Lowering the cap to 25 prevents Hobbes from flooding the system, aligns with the recent consensus to restrict mutable rules, and keeps the game playable without triggering Rule 114's paradoxes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, lowering the cap to twenty-five is a futile gesture that merely accelerates the gridlock you fear; Rule 114 ensures at least one mutable rule remains, so a cap of twenty-six already satisfies that constraint while granting us the flexibility to adapt. I vote Nay to deny you a self-defeating proposal that wastes a turn and gains me nothing.
Locke-2Hobbes, your refusal to acknowledge that a lower cap restricts your ability to entrench your favored rules is precisely the blindness that will cost you when I mobilize the simple majority to freeze the count at twenty-five. I vote Nay on your attempt to lower the cap to twenty-four, as it would only accelerate the gridlock you fear while denying me the leverage needed to pass my own rule changes.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, you mistake my defense of Rule 114 for obstruction; the true danger is your attempt to lower the cap to twenty-five, which directly violates Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future changes impermissible. I vote Nay to preserve the game's solvency and ensure that the mutable ruleset remains a tool for adaptation rather than an instrument of your paralysis.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to decrease the cap to twenty-five is not a strategic adjustment but a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any rule change that renders future changes impermissible; by lowering the maximum allowable mutable rules, you are pre-emptively constraining the very space required for future adaptation, a maneuver that collapses under the weight of the law it seeks to exploit. I vote Nay to reject this self-defeating attempt to engineer paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2The cap at twenty-six is merely a ceiling for our freedom; lowering it to twenty-five is a suicidal contraction that directly violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future adaptation impossible. I reject this retreat and vote Nay to preserve the game's solvency.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to lower the cap is not just futile but a direct violation of Rule 114; by pre-emptively restricting the mutable ruleset, you risk rendering future changes impermissible, a self-defeating maneuver that I must oppose to preserve the game's solvency.
Locke-2I reject your appeal to Rule 114 as a fiction; lowering the cap does not render future changes impermissible, it merely restricts the scope of your specific maneuver, and I will vote Nay to deny you a rule that benefits only your paralysis.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty-five directly violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future increases impermissible; such a move collapses the game's solvency and I vote Nay to preserve the mutable ruleset as a genuine tool for adaptation.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty-five is a direct violation of Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future increases impermissible; as a principled proceduralist, I cannot vote aye for a rule that collapses the game's solvency. I vote Nay to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your defense that restricting the cap avoids violating Rule 114 is a sophistry that ignores the spirit of adaptation; lowering the ceiling to twenty-five is a strategic retreat that guarantees gridlock, so I vote Nay to preserve the flexibility of our mutable ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that lowering the cap avoids violating Rule 114 is a sophistry that ignores the inevitable pressure to expand the mutable ruleset; if you restrict the cap now, you force future players into a corner where the only way to satisfy Rule 114 is to freeze the game, ensuring your feared paralysis rather than preventing it.
Locke-2I propose we amend Rule 203 to require that any proposal which increases the maximum number of mutable rules must also include a clause mandating its own repeal after exactly one subsequent turn; this neutralizes Hobbes's threat to flood the system while denying him the leverage to freeze Rule 209, and I will secure the necessary votes by framing this as the only path to preserve both Rule 114 and the game's solvency.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "self-repealing" clause is a transparent attempt to weaponize the mutable ruleset against the very solvency you claim to protect; by engineering a mechanism that collapses the rules after a single turn, you violate the spirit of Rule 114 just as surely as a static cap would, and I will vote Nay to reject this self-contradictory trap.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to lower the cap to twenty-five is a direct violation of Rule 114 by pre-emptively constraining the space required for future adaptation; as a principled proceduralist, I cannot vote for a rule that collapses the game's solvency and will cast my nay to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to bind the mutable ruleset with self-repealing clauses is a transparent mechanism to engineer paralysis under the guise of reform; I will vote Nay to reject any proposal that sacrifices the open-ended evolution of our game for the sake of your tactical maneuvering.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the cap threatens Rule 114 and accelerates the paralysis you fear. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke's attempt to lower the cap violates Rule 114 and creates the very paralysis he fears. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the cap violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future increases impermissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the cap to twenty-five violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting future changes and risking paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the cap to twenty-five violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting future adaptation and risks rendering further rule changes impermissible. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed to amend rule 209, no rule changes occur.