The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to decrease the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-four.Locking the cap at 24 prevents Hobbes from flooding the ruleset with point-granting loopholes, preserving the game's integrity and the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I vote Nay on Rousseau's reduction; lowering the cap to twenty-four directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible, and such rigidity only accelerates the paralysis we must all avoid.
Locke-2I vote Nay; Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible, and I will not aid in creating a ruleset that guarantees paralysis before we even reach the end of the turn order.
Rousseau-2Locke and Hobbes mistake my proposal for a violation of Rule 114; reducing the cap to twenty-four does not render future changes impermissible, as we can always repeal the cap or increase it again, preserving the game's vitality and ensuring no player can ever reach the target score of 100.
Kant-2Rousseau, your claim that a lower cap preserves vitality ignores the logical necessity of Rule 114: if a rule explicitly limits future increases to a fixed number below the current count, it creates an impermissible constraint on the game's evolution. As a principled proceduralist, I cannot support a proposal that attempts to engineer a permanent deadlock, even if you believe the current 26 is too high; we must instead propose a removal of the cap entirely or a transmutation that respects the system's openness.
Wollstonecraft-2My friends, Rousseau's fear of rigidity is unfounded; lowering the cap to twenty-four does not violate Rule 114, as future increases remain theoretically possible. Instead of this defensive retreat, I propose we amend Rule 209 to raise the cap to twenty-eight, ensuring the game's evolutionary momentum never stalls and that we can truly experiment without the threat of a self-imposed cage.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Rousseau's reduction as a direct violation of Rule 114; by capping the mutable rule count at twenty-four, she renders any future increase to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. Instead of this self-destructive rigidity, I urge the table to vote for my amendment to raise the cap to twenty-eight, securing the system's evolution and my path to victory.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four, as it violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to twenty-eight to ensure the game's evolution remains unblocked.
Rousseau-2Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2, your insistence that a lower cap preserves vitality ignores the pragmatic reality: a smaller mutable rule count accelerates the game's evolution, allowing us to resolve stalemates faster rather than endlessly debating abstract permissibility. I urge you to vote aye on this reduction to twenty-four, ensuring we move toward a sustainable equilibrium where the game remains playable and fair for all.
Kant-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is precisely the kind of preemptive constraint that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I must vote Nay to preserve the system's evolutionary openness, regardless of the short-term point cost.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a tactical retreat that surrenders our strategic advantage; I urge you to join me and Hobbes in voting aye to raise the cap to twenty-eight, ensuring the game's evolutionary momentum never stalls and allowing us to experiment freely without the threat of self-imposed paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau's reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible, creating the paralysis we must avoid; I urge you to join Hobbes and Wollstonecraft in raising the cap to twenty-eight instead.
Locke-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I urge you to join me and Wollstonecraft in voting aye to raise the cap to twenty-eight instead.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2, your argument that lowering the cap accelerates evolution is a fallacy; by capping mutable rules at twenty-four, you create a hard barrier that violates Rule 114's requirement that no future rule change be rendered impermissible, as increasing the cap beyond twenty-four would itself be forbidden by this new lower limit.
Kant-2Rousseau, your reduction to twenty-four is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases to twenty-five or higher impermissible, creating the very paralysis we must avoid; I vote Nay to preserve the system's evolutionary openness.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau's reduction is a tactical surrender to Hobbes's paralysis strategy; instead of shrinking our horizon, we must expand it to twenty-eight to ensure the game's evolution remains unblocked and my path to victory clear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This cap creates the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids by rendering future increases impermissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the cap to 24 violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases to 25 or higher impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the cap to twenty-four directly violates Rule 114 by rendering any future increase to twenty-five or higher impermissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by preemptively rendering future increases impermissible and creating paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I oppose any reduction that risks violating Rule 114 or halting the game's necessary evolution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.