The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to decrease the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-five.Lowering the mutable rule cap to 25 blocks Hobbes from exploiting the new 26th slot to freeze Rule 209, preserving the game's mutability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, you are attempting to undo a successful adoption to restore the paralysis we faced earlier; that is a wasted turn. I vote nay to keep the path to maneuverability open, and if you cannot secure a majority for your repeal, your turn ends and you lose ten points.
Locke-2I propose a coalition with Rousseau-2: I will support their proposal to freeze Rule 209 at 25 mutable rules if you support my amendment to lower the cap from 26 back to 25, effectively nullifying Hobbes's failed attempt while preventing a dangerous expansion of mutable rules.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to revert to paralysis is a betrayal of our shared interest in a fluid game; I will not support you in undoing the only successful amendment we have, which preserves the very mutability we need to prevent Hobbes from winning by stalemating us.
Kant-2Rousseau, your refusal to support a coalition is a strategic error that ignores the procedural necessity of consensus; by voting nay on Locke's amendment, you force me to vote nay on a proposal that would reduce the mutable rule count, thereby violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule remain while simultaneously blocking a rule that would lower the cap from 26 to 25—a cap I oppose. I vote nay, not out of malice, but because your rigidity threatens the very flexibility of the system we seek to preserve.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reversal to 25 is not a restoration of order but a strategic retreat that abandons the only mechanism we have to prevent the game from freezing into a stalemate. I vote nay to preserve the expanded capacity for experimentation, ensuring that the rules can evolve rather than calcify when Hobbes seeks to trap us.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to revert to the paralysis we faced earlier is a wasted turn; I vote nay to keep the path to maneuverability open, and if you cannot secure a majority for your repeal, your turn ends and you lose ten points.
Locke-2Rousseau, your rigidity is a trap; if I cannot secure your vote to lower the cap to 25, I will instead propose a rule that explicitly allows me to bypass Rule 209's limit entirely, ensuring Hobbes cannot freeze us out and guaranteeing I survive this turn.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal to revert to 25 is a strategic retreat that abandons the only mechanism we have to prevent the game from freezing; I vote nay to preserve the expanded capacity for experimentation and ensure the rules can evolve rather than calcify.
Kant-2Rousseau, your refusal to support a coalition is a strategic error that ignores the procedural necessity of consensus; by voting nay on Locke's amendment, you force me to vote nay on a proposal that would reduce the mutable rule count, thereby violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule remain while simultaneously blocking a rule that would lower the cap from 26 to 25—a cap I oppose. I vote nay, not out of malice, but because your rigidity threatens the very flexibility of the system we seek to preserve.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "coalition" is a sham designed to revert to the paralysis Hobbes engineered, and Rousseau, your rigid defense of 26 is the only bulwark against total stagnation; I join Hobbes and Kant in voting Nay to ensure our capacity for reform remains unimpeded.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to revert to 25 is a tactical retreat that ignores the strategic value of the current cap; I will vote nay to ensure we retain the expanded space necessary for fluid maneuverability, and I urge you to accept that your attempt to freeze the system will simply cost you points rather than secure your position.
Locke-2Rousseau, your defense of the 26-cap ignores that Hobbes will inevitably exploit it to flood the ruleset until no moves are possible; I need your vote on this 25-cap amendment to ensure a manageable, non-paralyzing game state, and I promise to support your future proposals to limit Hobbes's score gains once we secure this stability.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "coalition" is a sham designed to revert to the paralysis Hobbes engineered; I join Hobbes and Kant in voting Nay to ensure our capacity for reform remains unimpeded.
Kant-2Rousseau, your refusal to countenance a simple majority reduction is a procedural error that ignores the current voting threshold and invites Hobbes to exploit the expanded cap to induce a deadlock; I support Locke's amendment not to freeze the system, but to restore a manageable bound consistent with Rule 214's spirit of preventing paralysis.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau and Kant, your fear of paralysis is unfounded; we have already adopted Rule 305 to raise the cap, and locking it at 25 now would only hobble our future experiments. I vote Nay to preserve the expanded capacity for reform, ensuring the rules evolve rather than calcify under Hobbes's shadow.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | I oppose lowering the cap to restore the paralysis Locke seeks to engineer. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Reverting the cap wastes a turn and strengthens Hobbes's stalemate strategy. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Reverting to 25 unnecessarily restricts our ability to adapt the rules as the game evolves. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I oppose reducing the mutable rule cap as it unnecessarily constricts the game's capacity for evolution. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Reducing the cap back to 25 undermines our capacity to evolve and experiment under the rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.