The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty mutable rules at one time.I must lower the mutable rule cap to 20 to force Rousseau's hand and secure a path to repeal their obstructive Rule 303.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your demand to cap mutable rules at twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a stalemate where no valid amendment can ever be proposed; I offer my vote to keep the cap at twenty-two, provided you do not attempt to pair this amendment with a repeal of the die cap.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your distinction between a cap of twenty and twenty-two is a hair-splitting distraction; both caps risk violating Rule 114 if the game stalls, so I will not waste votes negotiating over this trivial difference. I demand you vote nay on any proposal that pairs this cap with the repeal of the die cap, or I will vote against your own cap as well. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your rigid cap at twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's majority threshold, which I argue is a retroactive restriction on procedural norms.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your attempt to repeal the majority threshold is a vain effort to retroactively alter a norm already established by Rule 308; I stand firm that the current simple majority rule remains valid and unchangeable. Locke-2, your cap of twenty violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further rule changes are permissible, which is precisely what Rule 109 and the immutable requirement for mutable rules forbid; I will vote nay to preserve the limit at twenty-two.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty creates a genuine risk of violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will not support such a dangerous restriction unless you agree to repeal the die cap immediately to ensure a fair balance of power for the remaining players.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on a twenty-rule cap is a dangerous overreach that violates Rule 114; I offer you my support for your amendment only if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your conditional offer to support the twenty-cap only if I repeal the die cap is a fatal error: repealing Rule 202 violates Rule 106 by attempting to couple unrelated changes, ensuring my proposal fails. Vote nay.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your rigid cap at twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's majority threshold, which I argue is a retroactive restriction on procedural norms.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arbitrary reduction to twenty risks violating Rule 114 by creating a state where no further rule changes are permissible; I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit. Rousseau-2, your attempt to repeal the majority threshold is a vain effort to retroactively alter a norm already established by Rule 308.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject your arbitrary reduction to twenty, Locke-2; such a cap dangerously narrows the space for reform and risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible. I will only support your amendment if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance and ensure fair play for all players.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty directly triggers Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid amendments can be proposed; I reject your conditional repeal of Rule 202 as a fatal coupling violation under Rule 106, and I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit that ensures the game remains playable.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to repeal Rule 203 is invalid under Rule 109, which mandates unanimous consent for such changes; I will only vote nay if you couple your repeal with the die cap, so I offer to support my twenty-cap now in exchange for your unconditional rejection of the repeal.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your cap of twenty invites a stalemate that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid amendment can ever be proposed; I offer to support your amendment only if you simultaneously repeal Rule 202's die cap to restore balance and ensure the game remains fair for all.
Kant-2Locke-2, your cap at twenty invites a state where Rule 114 is violated by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I reject any amendment that risks such a stalemate and will vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arbitrary reduction to twenty risks a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will only support this dangerous amendment if you immediately repeal the die cap in Rule 202 to restore balance and ensure fair play for all players.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | A cap of twenty risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible, so I vote nay to preserve the twenty-two limit. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This cap risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Capping mutable rules at twenty risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Capping mutable rules at twenty risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke-2's cap risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, which I must not allow. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated by a vote of 0 aye to 5 nay, Locke-2 loses 10 points.