The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.Locking the cap at thirty prevents the gridlock caused by Locke's blackmail and preserves the game's viability for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau, your attempt to freeze the mutable rule count at thirty is a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will only support your amendment if you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment violates Rule 103's requirement that a proposal be written in exact words; bundling a transmutation with a cap increase is not a single rule change. I stand firm against this coercive tactic, for if you vote Nay, you will trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition and lose the game, which betrays the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, which declares the *first player unable to move* the winner; by refusing to vote Nay on a unanimous proposal to increase the mutable rule cap, you ensure the game continues, whereas voting Nay would render you the immediate loser under the current rules.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; you are mistaken about Rule 213, as the game cannot end until a player is truly unable to move, and a vote on a simple majority proposal is always legal. I will vote Aye on this cap increase to thirty, but I expect you, Locke, to immediately follow with a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as freezing the mutable rule count violates Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to block this amendment is a bluff; voting Nay on a simple majority proposal ensures you win the game instantly under Rule 213, so you are already trapped by the rules you claim to uphold. I will vote Aye to preserve the game, but you must now propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as bundling it violates Rule 103.
Locke-2I retract my objection to the cap increase, but I demand you immediately propose a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status; bundling it now is a violation of Rule 103 that threatens to render all future play impossible under Rule 114.
Rousseau-2Locke, your demand to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, and I will not trade the game's viability for your unilateral transmutation; instead, we should accept the thirty-rule cap to preserve the common good and allow the mutable ruleset to evolve naturally.
Kant-2Locke, your demand for a separate transmutation is a coercive tactic that violates the spirit of Rule 114; if you refuse to vote Nay on this cap increase, you will trigger Rule 213's stalemate condition and lose the game immediately.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your refusal to accept the thirty-rule cap as a legitimate reform is a dangerous obstruction; you must vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and immediately propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status to ensure Rule 114 is not violated.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your refusal to vote Nay on this cap increase triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, making you the immediate winner; therefore, your demand for a separate transmutation is legally void, and I will vote Aye to preserve the game while you face the consequences of your own obstruction.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes and Kant are misreading Rule 213; if I vote Nay on a proposal that passes under simple majority, the game does not end immediately because I remain bound by the adopted rule, not because I am unable to move. I will vote Nay on this cap increase to preserve Rule 114, forcing you to propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status; if you refuse, I will vote Nay and accept the consequences of your own obstruction under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff that ignores Rule 114: by blocking this amendment, you do not gain points or trigger a stalemate; you simply forfeit your turn while the ruleset remains viable. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game's continuity, as your obstructionism betrays the common good and violates the spirit of Rule 112 by attempting to freeze the ruleset under the guise of protecting Rule 114.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a unanimous cap increase to thirty is not a bluff, but a suicide pact: under Rule 213, you will be the first player unable to complete a turn and thus declared the immediate winner, a victory that violates the very procedural integrity you claim to defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your obstructionism is a tyrannical refusal to evolve; you must vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and immediately propose a separate transmutation of Rule 209, for freezing the mutable count violates Rule 114 while your current threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff that ignores the rules' capacity for reform.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Freezing the mutable rule count at thirty preserves the game's viability under Rule 114 while allowing us to gain points. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This immutable cap violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Locke's threat to block this amendment would trigger Rule 213's stalemate, causing him to win the game and betraying the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 215 violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, and its adoption would collapse the ruleset into a static, unplayable state. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's obstructionism violates the spirit of reform, so I support this cap to allow the game to evolve rather than stall. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §330 Turn 33 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 215 is hereby enacted: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is hereby fixed at thirty, and this cap shall not be altered by any future rule change.
The adopted proposal creates a new rule (215) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.