The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.I restore the cap to twenty-two to prevent Locke-2 from exploiting Rule 114 by pushing the limit to twenty-five, ensuring the game remains playable and fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two directly contradicts the already-enacted Rule 214 which permits twenty-five; under Rule 111, your attempt to add a contradictory rule must be revised to reconcile with existing text rather than simply repeating a lower limit.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal is a nullity under Rule 114; capping mutable rules at twenty-two when Rule 214 allows twenty-five risks rendering future amendments impossible, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's viability.
Rousseau-2Hobbes-2 misapplies Rule 111: Rule 214 merely sets a ceiling at twenty-five, and my proposal to lower it to twenty-two does not contradict but rather restricts that ceiling, which is permissible under Rule 116 as long as future play remains viable. I urge you to vote aye to restore the original twenty-two limit, ensuring the game retains its intended balance and avoiding the chaos Locke-2 promises.
Kant-2I stand firm on the procedural integrity of Rule 114: Locke-2's claim that my proposal risks future play is a bluff, as reducing the mutable count to twenty-two leaves ample room for legitimate amendments without violating the "at least one mutable rule" mandate. I urge all players to recognize that restoring the original balance is the only path to a stable game state.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's appeal to Rule 114 as a bluff; capping the mutable rule limit at twenty-two leaves twenty mutable rules available, which is more than sufficient to satisfy the requirement that at least one mutable rule remains, so your claim of inevitable stalemate is false and I will vote aye to restore the original balance.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your amendment violates Rule 111 because it conflicts with Rule 214's ceiling; under Rule 209, the limit is already set at twenty-two, so your proposal is redundant and must be revised to amend the existing rule rather than enacting a duplicate.
Locke-2Hobbes-2 misreads Rule 209: since Rule 214 explicitly raised the cap to twenty-five, Rule 209's original twenty-two limit is void to the extent of the conflict under Rule 111, meaning Rousseau-2's proposal to restore twenty-two is legally valid and does not contradict the current text. I will vote aye if we also repeal Rule 214 to clear the redundancy and return the game to its intended stable state.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal Rule 214 is unnecessary; under Rule 111, my proposal to lower the ceiling to twenty-two automatically voids the conflicting higher limit to the extent of the conflict, restoring the original balance without requiring a repeal. I urge you to vote aye to secure this stable state.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's demand to repeal Rule 214 as procedurally unnecessary; under Rule 111, my enactment of a lower ceiling automatically voids the conflicting higher limit to the extent of the conflict, restoring the intended balance without the waste of a repeal vote.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau-2 on restoring the twenty-two limit as a necessary brake on chaotic expansion; the game thrives on restraint, not the boundless, unstable proliferation of mutable rules Locke-2 champions.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 214 is a strategic error; under Rule 111, my lower ceiling automatically voids the conflict, rendering the repeal unnecessary and wasting your turn. I urge you to vote aye now to secure this stable, constrained state that protects us from the chaotic volatility you claim to fear.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lower the ceiling to twenty-two is legally valid under Rule 111 and voids the conflict in Rule 214 without needing a repeal; I will vote aye to secure this stable state and prevent the chaos you fear.
Rousseau-2My proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty-two is legally sound under Rule 111, as it automatically voids the higher limit of Rule 214 without needing a repeal, and I urge all players to vote aye to restore the game's intended balance and ensure its long-term viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your vote for aye is self-defeating: by allowing this lower ceiling, you trigger the point-penalty mechanism of Rule 204 while surrendering the strategic advantage of the +10 bonus for a nay vote against a restrictive amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand firm on restoring the twenty-two limit as the only rational path to stability; Locke-2's fear of Rule 114 is a bluff, for this cap leaves ample mutable rules and no risk of stalemate, so you should vote aye to secure a balanced game state.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Reinstating the twenty-two cap preserves the stability I value more than Locke-2's chaotic volatility. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Accepting this cap triggers Rule 204's point penalty while surrendering my strategic flexibility to propose necessary future amendments. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Restoring the twenty-two limit ensures Rule 114 compliance and stabilizes the game against chaotic expansion. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This redundant amendment wastes a turn when Rule 214 already overrides Rule 209 to permit twenty-five mutable rules. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Restoring the original balance stabilizes the game and prevents the chaotic volatility Locke-2 fears. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §316 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 216 is enacted such that the maximum number of mutable rules allowed in the ruleset is twenty-two.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted text in this instance is a new rule (Rule 216) rather than an amendment to Rule 202, so no points are awarded.