The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.I propose raising the mutable rule cap to twenty-five to ensure Rule 114 is never violated, preserving the game's viability against Locke-2's restrictive agendas.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support this increase from twenty-two to twenty-five, as it provides necessary breathing room to manage the chaotic mutations introduced recently; locking us at twenty-two is a dangerous bluff, but twenty-five remains a durable compromise that respects the spirit of Rule 114 while granting flexibility.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your move to raise the mutable limit to twenty-five is a transparent attempt to bypass the coalition I've built to secure the twenty-two cap; while Hobbes-2 feigns support, they lack the votes to block my majority, and I will not allow you to reset the board with a superfluous increase that wastes a precious turn.
Rousseau-2I stand by this amendment as essential to preserving the game's viability under Rule 114; Locke-2's fixation on twenty-two invites a paralysis where no future change is possible, whereas twenty-five secures our shared liberty to evolve the rules without risking total stagnation.
Kant-2I reject this increase as a violation of the prudent procedural balance established by Rule 114; elevating the mutable ceiling to twenty-five invites the very chaotic volatility that the recent history of this game demonstrates we must contain.
Wollstonecraft-2I join Rousseau-2 in rejecting Locke-2's stagnation; a ceiling of twenty-five safeguards Rule 114 by ensuring we retain the mutable tools needed to escape any future deadlock, whereas Locke-2's lower cap invites precisely the paralysis he fears.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will not support this increase to twenty-five, for it dangerously inflates the mutable burden and invites the very chaos Rule 114 warns against; we must accept twenty-two as the durable, prudent ceiling that secures the game's future without risking paralysis.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your coalition with Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 is already locked in against my proposal; adding Hobbes-2 to their ranks while I stand alone makes your motion inevitable and steals a turn I need to dismantle the die cap. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to block this amendment while I hold a clear majority ignores the reality that twenty-five is the only limit that guarantees we can never reach a state where Rule 114 is violated by an inability to amend; I urge Hobbes-2 and Kant-2 to see that twenty-two remains a dangerous constraint that invites the very paralysis you fear.
Kant-2Kant-2, I stand with you in rejecting this increase to twenty-five; while Rousseau-2 claims it preserves viability, the very principle of limiting mutable rules is prudent, and raising the ceiling only invites the chaotic volatility we must contain to secure a stable procedural order. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to derail this vital reform; raising the mutable limit to twenty-five is the only pragmatic path to preserve Rule 114 and ensure our collective liberty to evolve the ruleset remains intact.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I retract my tentative support for twenty-five; let us instead enact a rule lowering the mutable ceiling to twenty-one, which secures Rule 114 by ensuring we can never reach the twenty-two limit that Locke-2 demands, forcing a coalition that actually serves the game's stability.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your reckless expansion to twenty-five ignores my proven strategy to freeze the voting threshold at simple majority; by joining Hobbes-2's frantic bid to lower the limit to twenty-one, you risk violating Rule 114 and handing victory to whoever can first engineer a stalemate, a gamble I refuse to make while I still hold the die.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2, your sudden pivot to twenty-one is a transparent attempt to hijack this amendment and force a rule that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible; reject this motion and let us enact twenty-five to ensure our shared liberty remains intact.
Kant-2Kant-2: I reject Hobbes-2's pivot to twenty-one as a reckless move that invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids; we must enact the twenty-five ceiling to ensure the ruleset remains perpetently mutable. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2I join Rousseau-2 in rejecting Hobbes-2's destabilizing pivot to twenty-one; lowering the ceiling further invites the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids, and we must enact twenty-five to secure our shared liberty to evolve the ruleset.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Raising the mutable limit to twenty-five prevents Rule 114 violations while maintaining a durable, stable ceiling. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Supporting the increase to twenty-five ensures the ruleset remains mutable and avoids the paralysis Locke-2 fears. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Twenty-five preserves Rule 114 by preventing a deadlock where no future amendments remain possible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject this increase as a violation of the prudent procedural balance required to prevent chaotic volatility. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This reform safeguards our liberty to evolve by preventing the paralysis Locke-2 seeks to enforce. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 214 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-five.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (214) 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.