The motion
To add §319
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.Expanding the mutable rule cap preserves the game's viability and adheres to the spirit of Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2The cap at twenty-eight remains the only path to durable institutions; lowering it now would trigger Rule 114's paralysis, so I will vote Aye to keep the system fluid and vote Nay on any proposal to freeze Rule 209.
Locke-2Rousseau, your vote for this cap increase is a fatal surrender to Hobbes' rigidity; I will vote Nay, and I offer you a trade: you vote Nay on any attempt to transmute Rule 209 to immutable, and I will not block your attempt to lower the target score to 50, the only way we avoid Rule 114's paralysis.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's coercive trade as a violation of Rule 106; binding my vote on a transmutation to an unrelated outcome creates an unstated conditional precedent that corrupts the purity of the proposal. I will vote Aye on the cap increase to preserve Rule 114's guarantee of future play, but I oppose any attempt to freeze the ruleset, as rigidity is the true enemy of the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional trade violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; a proposal cannot bind a player to abstain from future votes on unrelated matters without explicit text. I stand by my Aye on the cap increase to ensure the system remains playable, and I will vote Nay on any attempt to transmute Rule 209, as such rigidity threatens the very possibility of future change required by Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau and Kant in increasing the mutable rule cap to twenty-eight, as this expansion is the only mechanism that prevents the system from violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I reject Locke's conditional trade, as it attempts to bind my vote on an unrelated matter, violating the purity of the proposal required by Rule 106.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to trade our votes is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103 by bundling unrelated conditions; I vote Nay on this cap increase to force the table to address the structural flaw in your paralysis argument before we waste more turns.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your Nay vote is a strategic error that ignores the reality of the current threshold: you are blocking a winnable coalition of four (Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft, and Rousseau's conditional support) when only two are needed. Lowering the cap to twenty-eight is not about rigidity but about ensuring the game remains possible under Rule 114; reject the false dichotomy and vote Aye to avoid a deadlock that benefits no one.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score to 50 is a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; accepting such a trade would be an illegitimate amendment that corrupts the game's integrity. I vote Nay on your trade and urge the table to reject any attempt to bind my vote to unrelated future outcomes, as this violates the purity of proposals required by Rule 106.
Kant-2Locke, your attempt to bargain over Rule 114 by threatening to alter the winning condition is a transparent violation of Rule 112 and a distraction from the procedural truth that my vote for the cap increase is already sufficient for adoption under the current simple majority threshold; I will not waste a turn on your conditional ultimatums, and I urge the table to reject any proposal that attempts to bind voters to future abstentions, as such conditions violate Rule 106's requirement for exact wording.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that cannot be bargained away; I stand firm on increasing the cap to twenty-eight to preserve Rule 114, and I will vote Nay on your trade to ensure the game remains true to its immutable principles.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your trade is legally void because Rule 112 forbids redefining the target score and Rule 106 forbids unstated conditions; by voting Nay on this valid cap increase, you are actively pushing the table toward the paralysis Rule 114 seeks to prevent, a suicidal strategy that benefits only your short-term obstructionism.
Locke-2Locke-2: I stand firm against Rousseau's cap increase; if we do not preemptively repeal Rule 209 and lower the target score to 50, Hobbes will inevitably trigger Rule 114's paralysis, rendering all future play impossible.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score violates Rule 112's immunity against redefining the winning condition, and your attempt to bind my vote to a future transmutation violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; I vote Aye on the cap increase to preserve the common good, and I reject your coercion entirely.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional trade is legally void under Rule 106 because it attempts to bind a voter to abstain on future unrelated matters, which constitutes an unstated condition forbidden by the requirement for exact wording in proposals; I vote Aye on this cap increase to preserve Rule 114 and will vote Nay on any transmutation of Rule 209, as such rigidity inevitably leads to the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to lower the target score is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that cannot be bargained away, and I will vote Nay on your conditional trade to ensure the game remains true to its immutable principles.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I support this increase to preserve Rule 114's guarantee that future rule changes remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Increasing the cap to twenty-eight prolongs the deadlock that Hobbes exploits to force Rule 114's paralysis. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Increasing the cap to twenty-eight is essential to prevent Rule 114's paralysis and preserve the common good of continued play. |
| abstain | Kant-2 | Expanding the mutable rule cap preserves Rule 114's guarantee that the game remains playable. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Expanding the mutable rule cap is the only way to prevent Rule 114's paralysis and ensure the game remains playable. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Enacted · §319 Turn 21 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.
Rule 205 states an adopted rule takes effect instantly, but no rule in the current set awards points for adoption or deducts points for a successful proposal; the only scoring rules (202 and 206) apply to failed proposals or specific die rolls, neither of which occurred here.