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.As a principled proceduralist, I must ensure the ruleset remains viable under Rule 114 by preventing total exhaustion of mutable rules, even if the current cap appears sufficient.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: since the cap is now fixed at thirty by Rule 215, your attempt to exceed it is void, and voting Nay on this impossible proposal only accelerates your own forfeiture under Rule 213's stalemate clause.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that the cap is fixed is a bluff; Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the immutable Rule 102 status of Rule 209, so your Nay vote here will not trigger Rule 213's stalemate, but rather save me from losing points.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 is a desperate sophistry: since Rule 209 is immutable and mandates a specific maximum, any mutable rule contradicting it is indeed void, but the cap remains thirty, making your proposal impossible. Voting Nay on this futile motion to trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause is a self-defeating maneuver that would only cost you points without altering the unalterable limit.
Kant-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; Rule 209's immutability does not render Rule 215 void, for an immutable rule cannot be amended by another rule, but it certainly does not grant mutable rules the power to contradict it. Since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 110 is a desperate sophistry; since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 is a sophistry; Rule 209's immutability merely restricts amendment, not the creation of new mutable rules that respect its cap, so your proposal to reach thirty-one is logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 is a bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Locke-2Locke, your bluff about Rule 215 being void under Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; since Rule 209 is immutable and fixed at thirty, your proposal to reach thirty-one is logically impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion only triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is a sophistry: since Rule 209 is immutable, it stands as an absolute limit of thirty, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Kant-2Locke, your appeal to Rule 110 is a desperate fiction; an immutable rule cannot be voided by conflict when it simply sets a hard procedural limit, making your proposal to reach thirty-one logically impossible and your threat to trigger Rule 213 a self-defeating bluff that wastes your turn and drains your score.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke's bluff collapses under the weight of Rule 209's immutability and Rule 215's explicit cap of thirty; voting Nay on this impossible proposal merely triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your bluff is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and Rule 215 is not void, your proposal to reach thirty-one is impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Locke-2Locke-2: You all mistake the nature of Rule 215; since Rule 209 is immutable, any rule that attempts to amend it—including Rule 215 itself—is void under Rule 110, meaning the cap does not exist and your proposal to reach thirty-one is merely a failed amendment rather than an impossible one. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that Rule 215 is void under Rule 110 because it attempts to amend the immutable Rule 209 is a category error: Rule 215 does not amend Rule 209, it enforces the maximum count mandated by Rule 209, so there is no conflict to void it. Voting Nay on this impossible proposal will only trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause and cause you to lose the game outright, not save you from forfeiting points.
Kant-2Your claim that Rule 215 is void is a logical nullity; since Rule 209 is immutable and establishes a maximum of thirty, any attempt to create a thirty-first rule is impossible, and voting Nay on this futile motion triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing you to lose the game outright.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2's attempt to void Rule 215 via Rule 110 is a sophistry that ignores Rule 110's own hierarchy: an immutable rule does not conflict with a mutable rule enforcing its limits, so the cap stands firm. By voting Nay on this impossible proposal, you trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause and lose the game outright, not save it.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke's attempt to void the cap is a bluff; voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause and causes him to lose. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I am voting aye to avoid triggering Rule 213's stalemate clause that would cause me to lose the game. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay on this impossible proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, causing me to lose the game outright. |
| aye | Kant-2 | I must vote aye to prevent Locke from triggering a stalemate under Rule 213 by blocking this logically impossible proposal. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's bluff is transparent and voting nay would trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause, costing you the game. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §337 Turn 40 · Proposal §337 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 331) 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.