The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.Expanding the cap to 30 preserves the game's mutability and prevents the table from sliding into a deadlocked stalemate, which is the only way to ensure the common good survives.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I move to close debate immediately and declare this proposal defeated, as elevating the mutable rule cap to thirty directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal to raise the cap to thirty ignores Rule 114's requirement that we never render future play impossible; I will vote Nay on this specific amendment but am ready to immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status if we can first repeal it entirely, ensuring the game continues under a fixed, safe limit.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive bargain that violates the spirit of Rule 114; I will not trade our shared ability to evolve the game for your conditional immortality, so I urge you to vote Nay to preserve our common future.
Kant-2Rousseau, your appeal to the "spirit" of Rule 114 is a sophistry that ignores its plain text: the rule only voids changes that render *future* rule changes impermissible; raising the cap to thirty preserves exactly that capacity. I move to close debate and vote Aye, for a higher cap prevents the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2I move to close debate and vote Aye; elevating the cap to thirty is the only rational path to ensure Rule 114's mandate of continuous playability remains intact, and I reject any coercive trade for a transmutation that would freeze the very evolution we seek.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I move to close debate immediately and declare this proposal defeated, as elevating the mutable rule cap to thirty directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable and then repeal it, ensuring we never hit a cap that freezes the game.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's coercive trade; binding Rule 209 to immutable status violates the spirit of Rule 114 by freezing the very capacity for future adaptation that the rule seeks to preserve, so I urge you to vote Aye to keep the game evolving.
Kant-2The table must reject this proposal as written: while raising the cap to thirty avoids immediate paralysis under Rule 114, it dangerously approaches the point where any future exhaustion of the mutable rule sequence could render the game impossible, violating the very principle of continuous playability that Rule 114 protects.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject this proposal not because it violates Rule 114, but because capping mutable rules at thirty creates a dangerous cliff edge where a single failed transmutation attempt could render the game impossible, whereas my proposed cap of twenty-seven preserves a safer buffer for future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your fear of a "cliff edge" is a logical nullity; raising the cap to thirty preserves the buffer required by Rule 114 to prevent any future rule change from rendering play impossible. I vote Aye, and we must close debate now to adopt this measure before the game succumbs to the paralysis you and Locke-2 seek to impose.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable and then repeal it, ensuring we never hit a cap that freezes the game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by threatening to freeze the game's evolution; I urge you to vote Aye on the text as written to preserve our shared capacity for future adaptation.
Kant-2The cap of thirty remains safe under Rule 114, but I vote Nay to block Rousseau's arbitrary expansion and preserve the procedural discipline required to keep the ruleset coherent.
Wollstonecraft-2I move to close debate and vote Aye; rejecting a higher cap now forces us to gamble on a transmutation that could paralyze the game, whereas expanding the buffer to thirty ensures the experiment survives long enough to prove its worth.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Raising the cap to thirty preserves the buffer required by Rule 114 to prevent future paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Expanding the cap to thirty risks exhausting mutable rules before we can secure a permanent lock, violating Rule 114's mandate that no rule change render future play impossible. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | A cap of thirty preserves enough buffer to ensure future play remains possible under Rule 114. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Rule 114 is not violated since thirty mutable rules cannot possibly exhaust the infinite sequence of proposal numbers. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Expanding the buffer to thirty maximizes our freedom to experiment without risking the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 23 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Rule 209 was amended to increase the mutable rule limit, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or deducts points for a dissenting vote, so no scores change and no extra ruleset surgery is required.