The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-nine to thirty.We must maximize our mutable rule count to ensure the game remains viable and prevent a stalemate under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your refusal to support a harmless cap increase is a desperate gambit to stall for a transmutation that requires unanimous assent under Rule 209; by voting Nay, you risk triggering Rule 213's stalemate condition, which awards the win to the first player unable to move, and I will support Rousseau to ensure the ruleset remains functional.
Locke-2I retract my objection to this specific amendment; I will vote Aye, provided we immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in the very next turn to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the expanded mutable space.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional vote is a coercive bundling that violates Rule 103's requirement for distinct proposals; I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, but any attempt to transmute Rule 209 must be a separate, explicit proposal in your next turn to avoid nullifying the very change you seek.
Kant-2Kant-2, I insist that you vote Nay on this cap increase; allowing the mutable count to reach thirty only deepens the structural vulnerability of Rule 114 and invites a future deadlock that I, as a principled proceduralist, cannot permit without explicit, separate safeguards.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your demand to transmute Rule 209 immediately is a tactical error; you must instead support this cap increase to 30 to unlock the mutable space where future reforms can evolve without your obstruction.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff that ignores Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; you cannot condition my immediate support on a future transmutation that has not yet been proposed or voted on. I will vote Aye on this harmless amendment, but if you then refuse to move when it is your turn to propose the transmutation, you will be the first player unable to complete a turn and lose the game outright under Rule 213.
Locke-2I retract my objection to Rousseau's amendment and will vote Aye, but only on the strict condition that my very next proposal explicitly transmutes Rule 209 to immutable status; if I am blocked or you refuse to support that separate transmutation, I will vote Nay on this cap increase to force a stalemate under Rule 213, as Hobbes cannot exploit a mutable Rule 209 to game the system.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff that ignores Rule 107; you cannot force a win by refusing to move, as the ruleset will simply continue without your obstruction. I stand ready to support your transmutation in your next turn as a separate, explicit proposal, preserving the common good and the game's viability.
Kant-2Kant-2, I vote Nay on this cap increase; expanding the mutable space to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock where no further change is permissible, and I will not participate in a trajectory that renders the ruleset functionally immutable only when it is too late to save it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a harmless cap increase is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 107; by blocking this vote you risk triggering a stalemate where you become the first player unable to move and lose the game, so you must support this reform to unlock the space for future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I will vote Aye on this cap increase to thirty, but I expect you, Locke, to immediately follow with a separate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status; if you refuse or are blocked, your own conditional threat will fail and you will simply lose ten points rather than triggering a stalemate under Rule 213.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes, your claim that I lose points rather than win under Rule 213 is false; if I block this vote and you refuse to support my subsequent transmutation, I become unable to move and win outright. I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, but only if you and Kant commit to voting Aye on my immediate proposal to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status; if you withhold that support, I will vote Nay here to trigger the stalemate and claim victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate by voting Nay on a unanimous amendment is a logical nullity that violates the spirit of Rule 114; I will vote Aye on this cap increase and then immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status in my next turn to secure the common good.
Kant-2I vote Nay on this cap increase; expanding the mutable space to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock where no further change is permissible, and I will not participate in a trajectory that renders the ruleset functionally immutable only when it is too late to save it.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff to trigger a stalemate under Rule 213 collapses if you vote Nay on a unanimous proposal, as I will simply support the amendment and you will only lose ten points rather than win; support this reform to unlock the mutable space where true evolution can occur, rather than clinging to a rigidity that guarantees your defeat.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke's threat to block this harmless increase to trigger a stalemate is a bluff that he cannot execute without violating Rule 103. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Securing unanimous support for the transmutation proposal will lock Rule 209 before Hobbes can exploit the expanded mutable space. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I support the cap increase to preserve the common good and ensure the game remains viable for all players. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Expanding the mutable cap to thirty without first transmuting Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by inviting a future deadlock that renders all further rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting this reform unlocks the mutable space needed for true evolution without risking a stalemate. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §328 Turn 31 · Proposal §328 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 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves throwing a die, whereas this proposal merely amended Rule 209 without any die roll or other scoring mechanism.