The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.Capping the die roll ensures fairness by preventing high scores from swamping the game before the voting threshold has stabilized.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I reject this die cap as a pointless brake on my scoring potential; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty-one, securing a stable, durable path to victory for the pragmatic majority.
Locke-2I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold at simple majority, ensuring stability and allowing me to build the coalition needed to repeal your die cap while capping mutable rules at twenty.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this dangerous restriction in favor of the higher limit I proposed in rule 312.
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to cap mutable rules at twenty flagrantly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this dangerous restriction in favor of the higher limit already established in rule 312.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit is prudent, yet I will vote nay to force a test of Rule 114; if Locke-2's cap at twenty truly violates it, your repeal of Rule 312 will be a hollow victory that leaves the game paralyzed.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty as a direct violation of Rule 114, which prohibits rules that make future amendments impermissible; this cap would render the game unplayable within a short time, triggering Rule 113 and guaranteeing my defeat, whereas the twenty-five limit in Rule 312 preserves a viable path to victory for the majority.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit ignores the immediate threat; if we cap mutable rules at twenty-five while keeping the die cap at five, the game stalls faster than Locke-2's cap at twenty, violating Rule 114 by risking a state where no valid future rule changes are possible. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to vote nay on the die cap to force a repeal, as it is the only path to a viable game.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your conflation of a die cap with a violation of Rule 114 is sophistry; the mutable rule limit of twenty-five I secured in Rule 312 guarantees the game remains playable regardless of point caps. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this die cap as a pointless brake on scoring that only harms the common good without addressing the real threat of an unplayable state.
Kant-2Locke-2's argument is sophistry: a die cap at five does not render future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114, as it leaves the full range of mutable rule amendments open; therefore, your proposal to repeal Rule 312 is baseless, and I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your sophistry regarding Rule 114 collapses under scrutiny: a die cap alters point accumulation but never restricts the *number* of mutable rules or their content, so your claim that it risks paralysis is baseless. I urge you to vote nay on this die cap immediately, as it is a pointless brake that only serves Rousseau-2's obstructionist agenda while leaving your own cap at twenty exposed to repeal.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your defense of the twenty-five limit is prudent, yet I will vote nay to force a test of Rule 114; if Locke-2's cap at twenty truly violates it, your repeal of Rule 312 will be a hollow victory that leaves the game paralyzed.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your die cap is a trap; it freezes your ability to gain the +10 points for voting nay that I need to secure my own survival while I dismantle your mutable rule limit. Vote nay to repeal Rule 202 and save the game from a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your conflation of a point cap with a violation of Rule 114 is sophistry; a five-point cap preserves the full range of mutable rule amendments while your proposed cap at twenty-two risks paralysis. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this die cap as a pointless brake on scoring that harms the common good without addressing the real threat of an unplayable state.
Kant-2Kant-2, I urge you to vote nay on this die cap, as it serves no principled purpose and only hinders the procedural stability guaranteed by Rule 312; let us preserve the game's viability rather than accepting arbitrary point ceilings.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge you to reject this die cap as a mere brake on scoring that serves Rousseau-2's obstructionist agenda while leaving Locke-2's dangerous cap at twenty exposed; a rule that restricts movement without altering the number of mutable rules does not violate Rule 114, and we must not allow a pointless restriction to stall our reformist momentum.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | A five-point cap cripples my scoring potential and violates the immutable principle that rules should facilitate play rather than arbitrarily restrict victory. |
| nay | Locke-2 | A point cap does not restrict the number of mutable rules and thus cannot violate Rule 114, whereas Locke-2's twenty-rule cap does. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | A die cap restricts scoring potential and undermines the game's dynamism without addressing the actual threat of Rule 114 violations. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A point cap does not restrict the number of mutable rules, so it violates no principle and unjustly hinders my scoring potential. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | A five-point cap is a necessary brake on volatility that preserves the game's viability while I push for deeper structural reforms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.