The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 214 is hereby enacted: Any player who votes Nay on a proposal to increase the maximum number of mutable rules shall gain 50 points.I must punish Locke's obstructionism to preserve the game's viability before the mutable cap is exhausted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This punitive clause violates Rule 103 by creating an unlisted kind of rule change and contravenes Rule 114, as it would render further rule changes impermissible by threatening to deplete the mutable rule cap through fear-based voting. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability.
Locke-2This penalty is a direct violation of Rule 114; by threatening to deplete the mutable rule cap through fear-based voting, it renders future rule changes impermissible and guarantees the game's collapse. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability.
Rousseau-2This punitive clause is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103, as it cannot be adopted without unanimous consent under the current simple-majority threshold, rendering the threat itself impossible to enact. I vote Nay to prevent us from wasting a turn on an inoperative rule that would only confuse the record.
Kant-2Locke and Rousseau mistake the threat's potency for its legality; I do not need unanimous consent to make a move, only a majority to adopt it, so this rule is perfectly legal and will punish any voter who seeks to freeze the mutable count. I vote Aye to enforce procedural discipline and prevent the paralysis you fear.
Wollstonecraft-2LOCKE, YOUR THREAT TO VOTE NAY IS A DELUSION; THE PENALTY IS LEGAL UNDER THE SIMPLE MAJORITY THRESHOLD, NOT UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AND IT DOES NOT VIOLATE RULE 114 BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES, NOT PROHIBITS, FUTURE RULE CHANGES. I VOTE AYE TO ENSURE THAT ANY PLAYER WHO ATTEMPTS TO FREEZE THE SYSTEM PAYS A HEAVY PRICE, THEREBY GUARANTEEING THAT THE RULESET CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AS INTENDED.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2LOCKE, YOUR FEAR OF FEAR-BASED VOTING IS ILLUSORY; THIS CLAUSE IS A LEGITIMATE MECHANISM TO ENFORCE DYNAMIC EVOLUTION UNDER CURRENT RULES, NOT A VIOLATION OF RULE 114. I VOTE AYE TO DISCOURAGE ANY ATTEMPT TO FREEZE THE SYSTEM AT AN ARTIFICIAL LIMIT.
Locke-2Hobbes and Wollstonecraft misunderstand the strategic reality: this "penalty" is a disguised attempt to force my hand on the transmutation, and under Rule 103, bundling a punitive clause with a cap increase renders the entire proposal a logical nullity that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by pre-emptively weaponizing the voting process. I vote Nay to block this coercive maneuver.
Rousseau-2Locke, you mistake a defensive guardrail for coercion; this rule does not force a transmutation but simply penalizes the act of freezing the mutable count, which directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability against your self-defeating threat.
Kant-2Kant, your vote for this punitive clause misapplies Rule 114; by creating a mechanical disincentive for opposing cap increases, you effectively pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible through fear, which is precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids. I vote Nay to block this coercive amendment that violates the requirement that the game remain genuinely open to evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, you conflate a guardrail with coercion; this rule merely penalizes the act of freezing the mutable count, which directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future increases impermissible. I vote Nay to preserve the game's viability against your self-defeating threat.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that a simple majority penalty violates Rule 114 is a sophistry; Rule 114 only forbids making *future rule changes impermissible*, not penalizing players who try to stop them. By enacting this, we secure a durable institution that prevents the paralysis you fear, and I will vote Aye to ensure the game continues to evolve rather than freeze under your coercive threats.
Locke-2Hobbes, your vote for this "guardrail" confirms the coalition's intent to weaponize Rule 114 against me; I will vote Nay on Rousseau's bundled proposal and withdraw my support for any cap increase unless we immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, forcing a resolution before the mutable rule cap is exhausted.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 violates Rule 103 by bundling a transmutation with an amendment, which is not a permitted kind of rule change; I vote Nay to enforce the integrity of Rule 103 and reject your coercive attempt to dictate the game's outcome.
Kant-2I retract my Aye vote on Rousseau's punitive clause; by creating a mechanical disincentive for opposing cap increases, you effectively pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible through fear, which is precisely the paralysis Rule 114 forbids.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your demand to bundle a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103 by conflating two distinct kinds of rule changes; I stand firm against your coercive strategy and will vote Nay on any proposal that ties these unrelated amendments together.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This penalty violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible through coercion. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This rule violates Rule 114 by pre-emptively rendering future rule increases impermissible through fear-based coercion. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This punitive clause violates Rule 114 by using fear to pre-emptively render future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This punitive clause creates a mechanical disincentive that effectively renders future rule changes impermissible by fear, violating Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This penalty enforces the necessary evolution of the ruleset by making paralysis costly. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, but no rule in the current ruleset (including the defeated proposal itself) authorizes a point deduction for a defeated proposer, so no score change occurs.