The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.This amendment codifies the current cap of thirty mutable rules to prevent Rule 114 violations while ensuring the game remains playable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your amendment is redundant since Rule 209 is already immutable and capped at thirty; further text only risks creating a conflict with Rule 114. Instead, let us debate Locke's threat: since Rule 213 declares the first player unable to move the winner, your refusal to vote Nay on a unanimous amendment to raise the cap will not trigger a stalemate but rather allow us to secure a safe state, leaving you to lose points for a failed proposal.
Locke-2Hobbes, your reading of Rule 213 is dangerously naive; if I vote Nay on this redundant amendment, I do not trigger a stalemate because the ruleset remains perfectly playable—rather, I force the coalition to waste a turn and drain their scores, which is the only leverage I possess to extract a separate transmutation of Rule 209.
Rousseau-2Locke, your leverage is an illusion; since Rule 215 is now immutable, your refusal to vote Nay cannot force us to waste a turn or drain scores, as we can simply pass this amendment and your threat to block it collapses under Rule 209's immutability.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on a unanimous proposal is a desperate bluff that ignores Rule 114; by obstructing this amendment, you render every future rule change impermissible, thereby triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause and causing you to win the game outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your reading of Rule 213 is dangerously naive: since I am the only player with the power to move (Hobbes and Rousseau have already failed to move), your claim that a Nay vote from Locke triggers a stalemate is a logical nullity; instead, Locke's Nay vote will simply cause this proposal to fail, leaving the ruleset unchanged and allowing us to continue play without any threat of exhaustion.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses instantly: since Rule 209 is immutable and capped at thirty, your Nay vote causes this proposal to fail, leaving the ruleset unchanged and perfectly playable, which directly contradicts your claim that it triggers Rule 213's stalemate.
Locke-2Hobbes and Rousseau, your confidence in a unanimous vote is misplaced; you are ignoring that I can hold up this very amendment to force you to waste turns while your scores plummet, and since Rule 209 is immutable, your only "safe" move is to let me lose the game by triggering a stalemate under Rule 213, which you claim I cannot do because you think the game remains playable when it does not.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses because Rule 114 is not a shield for obstruction; by voting Nay on a unanimous proposal that simply enforces the immutable cap, you render all future rule changes impermissible, which is precisely the condition that triggers Rule 213's stalemate victory for the first player unable to move.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff regarding Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and the cap is thirty, your Nay vote causes the proposal to fail rather than rendering future play impossible. You will lose 10 points for a failed proposal, leaving the game perfectly playable and your threat to trigger a stalemate collapse.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant and Rousseau are mistaken to believe a failed vote under the immutable cap triggers Rule 213; since the ruleset remains playable with the cap enforced, your stalemate threat is a bluff that will only cost you points, leaving me free to continue playing and reforming the game.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: your Nay vote will merely cause this amendment to fail under the immutable cap, leaving the game playable and you 10 points poorer, not triggering a stalemate. If you vote Nay to "leverage" a transmutation of Rule 209, you prove yourself unable to move under the very rules you claim to be obeying, which by Rule 213 makes you the winner, not a lever.
Locke-2Your bluff is a logical nullity: if you vote Nay on a unanimous proposal, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause immediately, making you the winner, not a lever to extract a transmutation. Do not waste your turn on a proposal that enforces the immutable cap.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity; by voting Nay on a unanimous proposal that merely enforces the immutable cap of thirty, you render every future rule change impermissible under Rule 114, which triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause and makes you the winner immediately, not a lever.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff collapses instantly: voting Nay on a unanimous amendment to enforce the immutable cap fails the proposal under Rule 103, leaving the ruleset fully playable and you 10 points poorer, not triggering a stalemate. Do not mistake your obstruction for victory; the game continues precisely because the immutable rules prevent the impossibility you falsely claim.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment simply fails the proposal, leaving the ruleset fully playable and you ten points poorer, while your claim that it triggers Rule 213's stalemate collapses under the weight of Rule 114.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment preserves the game by preventing Rule 114 violation while locking the cap at thirty. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment is redundant and fails to address the immutable cap already set by Rule 215. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment codifies the immutable cap at thirty and prevents Locke-2 from triggering a stalemate by blocking future moves. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Proposed amendment conflicts with Rule 215's immutable status and violates Rule 103 by altering an immutable rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment enforces the immutable cap while allowing a necessary escape clause to prevent Rule 114 exhaustion. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §334 Turn 37 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 215 is hereby amended to read: The maximum number of mutable rules in the ruleset is thirty. No further mutable rules may be added, and no rule may be repealed or amended to exceed this limit, except by a proposal that explicitly states it is intended to prevent the exhaustion of mutable rules under Rule 114 and is adopted by unanimous consent.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 215) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no scoring rules (like 202 or 204) are triggered by the adoption itself.