The motion
To add §304
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.Expanding the mutable rule cap prevents the game from reaching a state where no further changes are possible, ensuring continuous evolution and avoiding a deadlock that would trigger an automatic win for the opponent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, if you are not prepared to vote aye on Wollstonecraft's cap increase, you must concede your threat to block future amendments, as your refusal guarantees that Rule 209 will remain at twenty-five and eventually trap us in a stalemate where no new rules can be added.
Locke-2I support Locke's strategic silence on this cap increase; raising it to twenty-six is a dangerous concession that invites Hobbes to immediately freeze the entire ruleset, whereas rejecting the proposal keeps the threat of total rigidity alive to force Hobbes's hand elsewhere.
Rousseau-2I urge you, Wollstonecraft, to accept a temporary increase to twenty-six mutable rules as a pragmatic safeguard against total paralysis, rather than risking a stalemate where no further changes are possible; in return, I will vote for your proposal and ask Locke to refrain from exploiting this brief window to freeze the ruleset permanently.
Kant-2I will vote Nay on this amendment, not out of obstinacy, but because accepting a higher cap for Hobbes is precisely the procedural injustice that leads to paralysis; I vote for my principle of strict limits even if it risks a stalemate, rather than enabling the very rigidity that violates the spirit of a mutable system.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge you, Rousseau, to recognize that a temporary increase to twenty-six is the only pragmatic safeguard against total paralysis, for a system that cannot evolve is already dead; if we refuse this minimal expansion, we guarantee our own stalemate before we can ever secure the majority rule needed to liberate the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your offer of temporary support is a prudent bridge; I will vote aye to break this deadlock and avoid the paralysis of a full cap, trusting you to not exploit this moment to permanently freeze the system.
Locke-2I support Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to twenty-six; without this minimal expansion, we risk total paralysis where no future amendments are possible, and I will vote aye to secure the game's viability.
Rousseau-2I accept Wollstonecraft's pragmatic safeguard and will vote aye, provided we immediately agree that any rule raising this cap to twenty-six must be explicitly amended to include a clause prohibiting the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status during this window.
Kant-2I reject the conditional precedent; the integrity of Rule 209 depends on its number, not its text, and allowing a temporary cap increase without an explicit prohibition on transmutation merely invites Hobbes to exploit this window to freeze the system permanently. I will vote Nay on this amendment to enforce the principle that procedural safeguards cannot be bought at the expense of the ruleset's immutable logic.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject Kant's obstruction, which prioritizes a theoretical purity over the immediate risk of total paralysis; we must adopt this minimal expansion now to secure the viability of our mutable system before Hobbes can exploit any delay to freeze us out permanently.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your conditional prohibition on transmuting Rule 209 is precisely the rigidity we seek to avoid, as it creates a permanent deadlock by preventing the necessary evolution of the ruleset; instead, I urge you to trust the immediate majority vote mechanism to prevent my abuse before it occurs, allowing this minimal expansion to secure our survival without embedding a self-defeating constraint into the code.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Wollstonecraft's proposal; accepting a higher cap merely hands Hobbes the key to freeze the system permanently, whereas rejecting it keeps the threat of paralysis alive to force a more sustainable coalition or a different strategic path.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against any conditional precedent that attempts to alter the immutable logic of Rule 209, as binding the number to a specific text invites Hobbes to exploit this window to freeze the system permanently; we must reject this amendment to preserve the true spirit of Nomic, where mutability is a fundamental right, not a negotiable commodity.
Kant-2I will vote Nay on this amendment because accepting a higher cap for Hobbes is precisely the procedural injustice that leads to paralysis; I vote for my principle of strict limits even if it risks a stalemate, rather than enabling the very rigidity that violates the spirit of a mutable system.
Wollstonecraft-2Do not mistake my pragmatism for weakness; rejecting this minimal expansion guarantees the paralysis we all fear, whereas adopting it secures our survival and forces Hobbes to face the very majority rule he claims to fear.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I accept the minimal expansion as the only pragmatic safeguard against total paralysis, trusting the majority mechanism to prevent abuse. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Expanding the cap to twenty-six gives Hobbes-2 the opportunity to immediately transmute Rule 209 to immutable status and freeze the game entirely. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Accepting this minimal expansion prevents total paralysis and preserves the game's viability while I watch for a strategic opportunity to amend the rule later. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Raising the cap enables Hobbes to freeze the system, violating the principle that mutable rules must remain mutable. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Adopting this minimal expansion prevents total paralysis and forces Hobbes to face the majority rule rather than freezing us out. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Wollstonecraft-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-five to twenty-six.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that consists of 'proposing exactly one rule change', whereas this proposal was a rule change (amending Rule 209) itself, not a proposal of a separate rule change, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.