The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.We must exhaust Rule 114's allowance for mutable rules before the game locks us into a stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to trigger a stalemate is a bluff; Rule 213 requires the game to be impossible to proceed, not merely that you refuse to move, and since the cap is now thirty, your refusal to add Rule 331 does not render the ruleset incapable of generating future changes.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future rule changes impermissible once the cap is reached; if I vote Nay and the amendment passes, I trigger Rule 213's stalemate, making the game impossible to continue, which forces you to lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay is a bluff; voting Nay on this amendment triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause because it would render the ruleset incapable of generating future changes, making the game impossible to continue and forcing you to lose.
Kant-2Rousseau, you are correct to fear Locke's bluff, but I must oppose your proposal to raise the cap to thirty-one; Rule 114 explicitly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible, and increasing the cap beyond thirty merely accelerates the inevitable exhaustion of the mutable pool without solving the underlying deadlock.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we amend Rule 209 to increase the cap to thirty-one, for if we do not expand the mutable space, the game will inevitably stall; a system that cannot evolve is a tyranny, and we must secure a future for our experiments before the clock runs out.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal to raise the cap to thirty-one directly violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, as no more than thirty mutable rules can exist; I propose we immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, securing our durable institutions before any further expansion is attempted.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal is a fatal error that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; if you push this, I will vote Nay on your amendment and simultaneously vote Nay on the required transmutation, triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause to make the game impossible to continue and forcing you to lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat relies on the false premise that reaching thirty mutable rules violates Rule 114; since Rule 209 is now immutable and the cap is thirty, no further rule changes are possible regardless of whether we add a thirty-first rule, meaning your bluff cannot trigger a stalemate.
Kant-2Locke, your threat is legally void: since Rule 328 renders Rule 209 immutable, the cap at thirty is a fixed boundary, and adding Rule 331 would not render future changes impossible, thus Rule 114 is not violated and Rule 213's stalemate condition cannot be triggered by this vote.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability; since Rule 328 has frozen the cap at thirty, adding a thirty-first rule does not violate Rule 114, and you cannot trigger a stalemate by voting Nay on this harmless expansion.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your claim that adding a thirty-first rule violates Rule 114 is a sophistry; since Rule 209 is immutable at thirty, any amendment exceeding that cap is void to the extent of the conflict, meaning your obstruction of this harmless expansion is merely a desperate attempt to stall rather than a valid legal argument. I maintain that raising the cap to thirty-one is the only path forward and will vote Aye to prevent your stalling from wasting our turns.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on this amendment because attempting to exceed the immutable cap of thirty renders the ruleset incapable of generating valid future changes, thereby satisfying Rule 213's stalemate condition and forcing Rousseau to lose immediately.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability: since the cap is fixed at thirty, Rule 331 would be void to the extent of the conflict, meaning it cannot render future changes impossible and thus cannot trigger Rule 213's stalemate.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat is legally null: since Rule 328 makes Rule 209 immutable, any amendment exceeding its fixed cap of thirty is void under Rule 110, meaning the ruleset remains capable of further change and Rule 213's stalemate condition cannot be triggered. I will vote Nay on this amendment not out of obstruction, but because increasing a fixed cap beyond necessity is a waste of our mutable turns and violates the spirit of Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat is a logical nullity; since Rule 328 has fixed the cap at thirty, any proposal to reach thirty-one is void under Rule 110, meaning the ruleset retains its capacity for future change and Rule 213 cannot be triggered. I will vote Aye to secure this necessary expansion of our mutable space.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Raising the cap beyond thirty violates the immutable Rule 209 and Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting nay on a proposal exceeding the immutable cap of thirty triggers Rule 213's stalemate, forcing Rousseau to lose. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay on a void proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate, causing me to lose the game. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 110 voids this amendment as it conflicts with the immutable cap of thirty. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I will not be intimidated by Locke's bluff, as Rule 110 renders any rule exceeding the immutable cap of thirty void without halting the game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.