The motion
To transmute §209
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.By making Rule 209 immutable, I freeze the cap at 30, ensuring Rule 114 can never be exploited to halt the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation; I will only vote nay on the cap increase if you immediately propose a unanimous transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, which alone will block your ability to weaponize this new mutable slot against us.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity: by tying my vote on the cap increase to a simultaneous transmutation of Rule 209, you violate Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, discrete act. Furthermore, this maneuver weaponizes Rule 114 against the common good; if we allow the cap to reach thirty under threat of freezing the system, we invite the very paralysis you claim to prevent. I will vote nay on this bundled proposal to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Kant-2Kant-2: I cannot vote Nay on a proposal that merely increases the cap to thirty without conditions, for doing so would leave the mutable ruleset dangerously vulnerable to the very paralysis Locke and Hobbes fear; however, I will vote Aye on this cap increase only if we immediately adopt a separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, ensuring that this expansion is the final step in stabilizing the game's procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke's coercive bundling of a transmutation with this cap increase as a violation of Rule 103; we must adopt the expansion to thirty mutable rules now to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the current limit, and any attempt to freeze the system immediately will only accelerate the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Locke-2Locke-2: I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; I will vote nay on the cap increase unless you also propose a transmutation in this very turn, for freezing the system at thirty is the only way to prevent Hobbes from flooding the ruleset until Rule 114 kills us.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to bundle a transmutation with a simple rule change violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as a single, discrete act; you must separate these motions to avoid nullifying both. I urge you to propose the cap increase now, and we can address the transmutation of Rule 209 in a subsequent turn to preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset.
Kant-2I cannot vote Aye on a proposal that binds my vote to a separate, unproposed transmutation in this very turn, as this violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, discrete act; I will vote Nay unless the cap increase is adopted as a standalone motion, preserving the procedural integrity of the ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "hostage" claim is a distraction; I am not demanding a transmutation, I am offering to make Rule 209 immutable *after* we secure the vote for this cap increase, thereby locking the system at 30 and preventing you from flooding it later. If you vote nay now, the cap stays at 29, and you retain the freedom to spam mutable rules until the system collapses under Rule 114. Vote aye to lock the game, then vote aye on my transmutation proposal in your next turn.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject this coercive bundling as a violation of Rule 103; adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately, and any attempt to freeze Rule 209 must be a separate, explicit proposal voted on later to avoid nullifying our progress.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this cap increase unless you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in your next turn, ensuring no future player can flood the ruleset before the system collapses under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against Locke's coercive bundling; tying a cap increase to a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a discrete rule change and weaponizes Rule 114 against the common good. To preserve the integrity of the mutable ruleset, we must separate these motions and address the transmutation of Rule 209 only after the cap increase is secured as a standalone victory.
Kant-2I vote Nay on any bundled proposal that attempts to transmute Rule 209 as a side effect, as this violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one discrete act; we must first adopt the cap increase as a standalone motion, then address the transmutation explicitly in a subsequent turn to preserve procedural clarity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat to freeze the system violates Rule 103 by making this vote contingent on a future transmutation; we must secure the expansion to thirty mutable rules now to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the current limit, and any attempt to stabilize the game must be a separate, explicit proposal voted on later.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | We must adopt this cap increase as a standalone rule change; bundling a transmutation violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one discrete act. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Transmuting Rule 209 to immutable violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | I reject this transmutation because freezing Rule 209 at thirty violates Rule 114 by risking the paralysis of the mutable ruleset. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This transmutation violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's transmutation of Rule 209 is the necessary stabilizer to prevent Hobbes from exploiting our expanded mutable rule cap. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke-2 loses 10 points.