The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby set to 24.I must cap the mutable count to prevent Hobbes from flooding the ruleset with infinite proposals to starve the turn queue.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to set the cap at 24 directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible; I will vote Nay unless you amend it to a sustainable maximum of 27.
Locke-2Hobbes, your demand for 27 ignores the paradox: if Rule 114 remains mutable, it can be repealed, which under Rule 114 itself would render future increases impermissible, collapsing the system. I propose 24 to ensure a stable, finite loop that guarantees Rule 114 survives long enough to be repealed, thereby clearing the path for Rule 209's transmutation to immutable status, which you claim protects the system. Vote Aye if you value survival over the illusion of infinite expansion.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "stable loop" is a fiction that relies on the table voluntarily repealing Rule 114; I will vote Nay because a cap of 24 does not solve the paralysis Hobbes has engineered, only delays the inevitable gridlock.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 24 is a direct violation of Rule 114, which explicitly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by attempting to pre-emptively restrict the ruleset, you undermine the very principle of procedural adaptability that sustains the game. Vote Nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to freeze the mutable ruleset under the guise of "stability" is precisely the rigidity I have fought against; you seek to weaponize a low cap to force a transmutation of Rule 209 that I oppose, and I will vote Nay to preserve the engine's capacity for genuine evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a transparent attempt to starve the system of the flexibility required to survive Rule 114's self-referential paradox; I demand you raise this to 27 to ensure the mutable engine remains viable, or face certain paralysis that benefits no one.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reliance on Rule 114 to condemn a specific number is a category error; Rule 114 forbids rendering *future* changes impermissible, but setting a cap at 24 leaves Rule 114 mutable and repeatable, satisfying your own requirement for adaptability while preventing the runaway expansion Hobbes seeks. I stand firm on 24 as the only path to a viable game state.
Rousseau-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a strategic surrender to Hobbes's paralysis; by limiting us to 24 mutable rules, you guarantee that Rule 114 will eventually be exhausted and the game will freeze under Rule 113 before we can even attempt to transmute Rule 209. Vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which is the only number that leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a solution.
Kant-2Locke, your arbitrary cap of 24 is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible; by attempting to pre-emptively restrict the ruleset's capacity, you undermine the procedural adaptability essential to the game. Vote Nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your cap of 24 is not stability but a calculated starvation of the very mechanism Rule 114 demands remain viable; by artificially truncating our ability to evolve, you guarantee the paralysis Hobbes engineers while claiming to solve it. I vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which alone leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a true solution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a strategic blunder that accelerates Rule 114's exhaustion; you must adopt the 27-cap I proposed to preserve the game's viability and ensure you can execute your transmutation of Rule 209 before the mutable rules are depleted.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reading of Rule 114 is flawed; setting a cap at 24 does not render future changes impermissible, it merely constrains the set of available changes while preserving the mutability of the cap itself. I offer you a trade: you vote Aye for my rule, and I will vote Aye for your proposal to lower the target score to 80, securing a guaranteed win for me that you can leverage for your own political capital.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "trade" to lower the target score is a blatant violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; furthermore, your cap of 24 directly violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached, guaranteeing the very paralysis you claim to solve. Vote Nay.
Kant-2I reject Locke's offer to lower the target score to 80 as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I vote Nay on his cap of 24 because it renders future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114, and I insist that the mutable engine must remain capable of infinite evolution to preserve the procedural integrity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your cap of 24 is a calculated starvation of the very mechanism Rule 114 demands remain viable; by artificially truncating our ability to evolve, you guarantee the paralysis Hobbes engineers while claiming to solve it. I vote Nay to preserve the maximum capacity of 27, which alone leaves a non-zero probability of surviving long enough to evolve a true solution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's cap of 24 directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke's cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting the ruleset's ability to evolve, guaranteeing the paralysis Hobbes seeks. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | A cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached, guaranteeing the paralysis we must avoid. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Locke's proposal violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively restricting future rule changes and threatening game paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's cap of 24 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the limit is reached, guaranteeing the paralysis he claims to solve. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule change enacted.