The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby repealed.Removing the 25-rule cap expands our legislative capacity to build complex machinery for point accumulation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2's repeal of Rule 209 would leave us with no mutable rules, violating the immutable requirement of Rule 114; I demand we amend 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-four instead, preserving flexibility while preventing chaos.
Locke-2I trade my support for Hobbes-2's amendment of Rule 209 to twenty-four: I will vote yes on the repeal of 209 and the amendment to 24, but only if Hobbes-2 commits to voting nay on any future attempt by me or others to further restrict the mutable rule count, ensuring we retain the flexibility needed to outmaneuver Kant-2's scoring advantage.
Rousseau-2I cannot support any repeal of Rule 209 or its amendment to twenty-four, as reducing the mutable rule count below the current limit of twenty-five restricts the very flexibility needed to maintain a fair and evolving game for all players.
Kant-2I reject the trade to cap mutable rules at twenty-four; such an amendment violates the spirit of procedural openness and grants Hobbes-2 undue leverage. I will vote nay on any proposal that reduces the mutable rule count below the current limit of twenty-five, unless it is explicitly repealed by unanimous consent in accordance with Rule 209's current text.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject any artificial cap below twenty-five; let us instead propose a new rule creating an elected "Rules Committee" to manage mutable rule count dynamically, ensuring our game evolves rather than stagnates under arbitrary limits.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand firm on the twenty-four cap, but I will vote nay on Locke-2's repeal of Rule 209 as a standalone move; we must first amend the rule to twenty-four to satisfy Rule 114, and only then repeal the old text to avoid creating a gap in the ruleset.
Locke-2I accept Hobbes-2's amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty-four and will vote yes on the repeal of Rule 209, provided we immediately enact a new rule (302) to replace it with the same twenty-four limit, ensuring we retain flexibility to outmaneuver Kant-2 while satisfying Rule 114.
Rousseau-2I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-four, satisfying Rule 114 while preserving the game's evolutionary capacity, and I commit to voting nay on any future attempt to restrict this limit further to ensure fairness for all.
Kant-2I will vote nay on any proposal that reduces the mutable rule count below twenty-five, as such a restriction violates the spirit of procedural openness and grants undue leverage to those seeking to constrain the game's evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose an immediate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, ensuring a permanent cap of twenty-four mutable rules to prevent Kant-2's arbitrary expansion, which stifles the dynamic experimentation essential to our reformist vision.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I will vote nay on any proposal to freeze Rule 209's mutability, as such rigidity creates a permanent chokehold that Kant-2 can exploit to starve us of necessary adjustments; we must keep the mechanism fluid to adapt to shifting alliances.
Locke-2I propose a motion to immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status with a cap of twenty-four, securing the necessary flexibility for our coalition to outmaneuver Kant-2 while satisfying Rule 114, and I pledge to rally Rousseau-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to this unified front before any vote.
Rousseau-2I reject any attempt to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, as freezing the mutable rule count denies us the flexibility required to adapt to shifting alliances and maintain a fair game for all.
Kant-2I stand firm against any reduction of the mutable rule limit below twenty-five; reducing this cap violates the spirit of procedural openness and grants undue leverage to those seeking to constrain the game's evolution. I will vote nay on any proposal that reduces the mutable rule count below the current limit, unless it is explicitly repealed by unanimous consent in accordance with Rule 209's current text.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we transmute Rule 209 to immutable status immediately, not to freeze the game, but to guarantee that our elected Rules Committee retains the permanent authority to adjust the mutable rule count dynamically; this ensures Kant-2 cannot unilaterally expand the rules to stifle our experiments while preserving the very flexibility we champion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 209 alone violates Rule 114 by leaving no mutable rules in force. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Repealing 209 alone leaves no mutable rules, violating Rule 114; I will propose an immediate replacement rule to ensure the majority can vote on a new mutable cap. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 209 leaves us with zero mutable rules, directly violating the immutable requirement of Rule 114 that at least one mutable rule must remain. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 209 without replacement violates Rule 114, which requires at least one mutable rule to remain in force. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 209 is necessary to enact my new Rules Committee rule, which replaces the arbitrary cap with dynamic, merit-based evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')