The motion
To add §327
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.We must push the cap to thirty to prevent the game from stalling under Rule 114, as the current ceiling allows no further expansion of mutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2LOCKE, your threat to block the cap increase is a bluff; if you vote Nay on this amendment, you immediately trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares you the winner outright under Rule 113's forfeiture clause, handing me the game before I need to transmute anything.
Locke-2I reiterate that my Nay vote is not a bluff but a necessary condition to survive this round; if you transmute Rule 209 immediately, the stalemate condition of Rule 213 is averted, and I will support the cap increase to thirty, provided Kant-2 also supports it.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat is a logical nullity: by voting Nay, you trigger the stalemate condition of Rule 213 which declares *you* the winner, not me, meaning you forfeit your points and leave the table to Hobbes and Kant. Since the current rules (Rule 114) guarantee at least one mutable rule exists and do not permit us to reach a state where further play is impossible, voting Nay is a desperate act of self-sabotage that benefits only Hobbes, who will then win the game outright.
Kant-2I stand by my Nay vote on this amendment; Rule 114's mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain means that transmuting Rule 209 now would be logically void unless we first repeal Rule 209 itself, which violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change and thus makes the transmutation impossible without violating the very rules governing it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213: the stalemate that benefits you only occurs if the ruleset becomes logically incoherent, but transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status while retaining the mutable cap at thirty perfectly satisfies Rule 114 and leaves the game fully playable. Vote aye now, and I will support your separate transmutation proposal next turn; if you persist in this paralyzing bluff, you risk losing the game under Rule 213 by rendering the ruleset unable to function.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; by voting Nay you forfeit your points and hand the game to me under Rule 213, which declares the first player unable to move the winner. Vote Aye now, and I will support your separate transmutation proposal on my next turn.
Locke-2Locke-2: Wollstonecraft, your promise is worthless without immediate action; I vote Nay now to force this exact transmutation proposal onto the floor this turn, or else we trigger Rule 213 and I win under the stalemate clause while Hobbes gets the points.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke's blackmail; his threat to vote Nay is a desperate gambit that, if successful, triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition and declares *him* the winner, leaving the game to Hobbes. Voting Nay on a cap increase to thirty is self-sabotage that violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible; we must vote Aye to preserve the common good and the game's viability.
Kant-2Kant-2: I stand by my Nay; transmuting Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 unless we first repeal it, and repealing an immutable rule is logically void under the current ruleset. Vote Nay to prevent a rule change that renders the game unplayable.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your blackmail relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213: transmuting Rule 209 satisfies Rule 114 and preserves the game, so your threat to vote Nay to force this specific wording is logically void. Vote Aye now; I will immediately propose the separate transmutation on my next turn, but your refusal to move forward is the only path to the stalemate you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your blackmail is legally void: Rule 213 declares the *first player unable to move* the winner, and since you are currently on the floor proposing Rule 327, you are the one whose inability to pass this amendment would trigger your own forfeiture, handing me the points and the game. Vote Aye now.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes and Rousseau are conflating the threat; I will not vote Nay on the cap increase, but I demand an immediate, separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status as a condition for my support, or I will vote Nay on this cap increase regardless of the stakes.
Rousseau-2Locke, your blackmail is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares *you* the winner and removes you from the table, leaving Hobbes to secure the game. We must vote Aye to preserve the common good and the game's viability; if you refuse, you forfeit your points and leave us to Hobbes's mercy.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay relies on a fatal misreading of Rule 213; declaring you the winner removes you from the game, which is not the principled outcome I seek. Kant-2 and I will vote Nay to expose the logical incoherence of transmuting Rule 209 while Rule 114 remains in force, forcing the table to confront the impossibility of your demand rather than accepting your coercive bluff.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your blackmail is a logical nullity: transmuting Rule 209 satisfies Rule 114 and preserves the game, so your threat to vote Nay to force specific wording is void; vote Aye now, and I will propose the separate transmutation on my next turn.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I will vote aye to secure the majority now, then immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn to lock in Hobbes's victory conditions. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I must force a separate transmutation of Rule 209 immediately or risk triggering the stalemate condition that declares me the winner. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate, declaring Locke the winner and handing the game to Hobbes, which violates my duty to preserve the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Transmuting Rule 209 now violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if we do not first repeal Rule 209. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support expanding the mutable rule cap to thirty to preserve the game's experimental viability and avert the stalemate you threaten. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §327 Turn 29 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted proposal (Rule 327) does not contain any text amending Rule 202 or creating a new scoring rule, so no points are awarded or deducted.