The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Lowering the mutable rule cap from 25 to 20 restricts the field of competition and prevents opponents from flooding the zone with protective amendments, aligning with my goal of limiting strategic complexity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2A cap of twenty invites the very chaos Locke-2 fears and risks violating Rule 114 by leaving the ruleset unable to accommodate future necessary amendments; I propose we settle on a compromise of twenty-two, preserving stability without creating a deadlock trap.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your twenty-two is a fatal miscalculation; we must cap at twenty to prevent the chaos of too many mutable rules, but I demand you also support my repeal of the die cap so I can accumulate the points needed to reach 100 and win before your proposed restrictions strangle the game's evolution.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I will not support a proposal that jeopardizes the game's viability.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trap the game in a state of impossibility; lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114, and I will not support any amendment that risks rendering future rule changes impermissible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your demand to cap mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I will not support a proposal that jeopardizes the game's viability.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I propose a compromise of twenty-two mutable rules; this avoids Locke-2's Rule 114 violation while granting the stability he demands, but I will not join your coalition to repeal the die cap, as my victory depends on the full six-sided range.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes-2's compromise of twenty-two; that number still risks violating Rule 114 if the ruleset cannot accommodate necessary future amendments, and I refuse to repeal the die cap until you explicitly support my repeal of the five-point cap in Rule 203.
Rousseau-2I urge Hobbes-2 to reject Locke-2's demand to repeal the die cap, as it would permanently strip my ability to leverage the full six-sided roll needed to reach the target score; let us maintain the status quo on both the mutable rule limit and the die roll to preserve the game's viability and fairness.
Kant-2I must reject this compromise at twenty-two; it remains insufficient to guarantee future maneuverability and still risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking essential amendments. I will vote nay on any amendment that lowers the mutable rule limit below twenty-five to preserve the game's viability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your demand to repeal the die cap is the only path to victory for me, but your attempt to strangle the game's evolution by lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty violates Rule 114 and threatens the very viability of our play; I will not support a proposal that risks leaving us with no way to amend the rules, so we must reject this amendment and keep the limit at twenty-five.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand firm on twenty-two as the only viable compromise that respects Rule 114 while granting you the stability you claim to need, but I refuse to trade my full six-sided die roll for your artificial constraint; vote nay if you will not support this balanced amendment.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to invoke Rule 114 is a bluff; capping mutable rules at twenty does not guarantee a deadlock, and I will not let your fear of chaos block my path to victory. Hobbes-2, accept my repeal of the die cap as payment for your vote on this twenty-rule amendment, or lose your turn to no points.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your insistence on capping mutable rules at twenty flagrantly violates Rule 114, as it creates a genuine risk that future amendments will be impossible to enact, thereby dooming the game; I will not support any proposal that jeopardizes the game's very viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your demand to lower the mutable rule limit to twenty creates a genuine risk that future amendments become impossible, directly violating the imperative of Rule 114 that at least one mutable rule must remain and no change may block all future play; I will not trade my principled adherence to procedural viability for a point bonus derived from an amendment that threatens the game's very existence.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your fixation on capping mutable rules at twenty is not a strategy for stability but a reckless gamble that invites the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids; if we strangle the game's capacity to evolve, we lose the only mechanism by which victory can be meaningfully pursued. I will not trade the vitality of our experiment for a fragile constraint that threatens to paralyze us, so your proposal must fail unless you abandon this dangerous reduction.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future amendments impermissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking all future amendments. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Capping mutable rules at 20 risks violating Rule 114 by making future amendments impossible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the mutable rule limit to 20 risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking all future amendments. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty as a pragmatic compromise that grants you the stability you demand while preserving the game's viability under Rule 114. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.