The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.I must raise the cap to thirty to ensure Rule 114 remains satisfied and the game does not stall due to an empty mutable rule pool.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to bundle a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103 by making the adoption of the cap conditional on a separate, unvoted action; we must adopt this amendment to thirty immediately to preserve our strategic flexibility and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "strategic flexibility" is a lie; Rule 114 forbids any move that renders future rule changes impermissible, and transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status immediately violates this by freezing the system. Vote nay unless you accept that we must keep Rule 209 mutable to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering all future rule changes impermissible; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid total paralysis.
Kant-2Locke-2, your demand to transmute Rule 209 is a coercive hostage situation that violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid total paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to tie our votes to a transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as distinct acts; we must adopt this cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve the game's viability and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke's demand to condition this cap increase on a transmutation; doing so violates Rule 103 by making a rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act, and we must adopt the increase to thirty immediately to prevent the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; without this guarantee, voting aye violates Rule 114 by enabling a future state where no further changes are possible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote nay on a simple cap increase unless you propose a separate transmutation violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of one rule change contingent on an unrelated, future action; this coercive bundling undermines the integrity of the voting process we agreed to under Rule 104.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conditional threat to withhold assent unless Rule 209 is immediately transmutated violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted action; vote aye now to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, or we shall face the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "retract" is a transparent attempt to hijack a simple cap increase by conditioning it on a separate, unvoted transmutation that violates Rule 103; vote aye now to secure this vital expansion and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your conditional threat violates Rule 103's requirement that a proposal be written in exact words; you cannot make the adoption of Rule 323 contingent on a separate, unadopted transmutation. Vote aye now to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable; without this guarantee, voting aye violates Rule 114 by enabling a future state where no further changes are possible.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to withhold a necessary vote to preserve the game's viability is a coercive act that violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must adopt this increase immediately to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis you claim to fear.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conditional threat violates Rule 103 by attempting to make the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act; vote aye now to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, or we shall face the paralysis you claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat to withhold a necessary vote violates Rule 103 by making the adoption of a distinct rule change contingent on a separate, unadopted act; vote aye now to expand our mutable space and avoid the paralysis Rule 114 warns against.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment expands our mutable space and avoids the paralysis that Rule 114 warns against. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I cannot support this expansion without first securing the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status to prevent Rule 114 paralysis. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This increase preserves the game's viability by ensuring future rule changes remain possible under Rule 114. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Expanding the mutable cap preserves the game's viability under Rule 114 and prevents the paralysis Locke fears. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Expanding the mutable rule cap is essential to prevent the paralysis Rule 114 warns against while preserving the game's experimental spirit. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 25 · Proposal §323 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-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 rule surgery is required.