The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.'I must enforce a stricter cap on mutable rules to prevent the board from flooding before the two-circuit shield protects us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau's reduction to fifteen mutable rules is a strategic error that invites the chaos of rapid obsolescence; I propose we instead lower the cap to twenty, preserving the stability of our institutions while granting Locke-2 just enough room to maneuver without collapsing the system.
Locke-2I reject Hobbes' compromise of twenty; that cap still grants me sufficient room to erode the board while denying Rousseau the leverage needed to survive my inevitable push for a score reduction. If you cannot support a reduction to fifteen now, I will propose the repeal of Rule 208 alone, and your subsequent votes will be forced by the paralysis of an unreachable goal.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 208 ignores Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible; lowering the cap to fifteen is the only path that preserves the game's viability for all of us.
Kant-2Rousseau, your proposal to lower the cap to fifteen is a dangerous overreach that threatens the viability of the ruleset under Rule 114; I offer my vote only if you simultaneously repeal the current Rule 209 and replace it with a cap of twenty, ensuring stability while granting us sufficient mutable space to function.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Kant's conditional offer to repeal Rule 209 entirely, as it violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future changes are permissible; I will vote aye only if the amendment stands alone at fifteen, preserving the mutable space for necessary reforms without the existential danger of total stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your conditional offers create the very ambiguity that Rule 206 punishes; I propose we adopt Rousseau's amendment to fifteen as a singular, clear rule to stabilize the board against Locke's paralysis threats.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote is the linchpin: I will bind myself to support this fifteen-cap amendment immediately if you pledge to vote aye on any future proposal to lower the target score to 50, securing the coalition needed to break our stalemate.
Rousseau-2Wollstonecraft, your pledge to vote aye on a score reduction is the only coalition we need; I will support this fifteen-cap amendment immediately to secure that agreement, ensuring we stabilize the board against Locke's paralysis threats.
Kant-2Wollstonecraft, your pledge to support a score reduction is a hollow bargain that ignores the fact that lowering the target violates Rule 112; I will only vote for Rousseau's amendment to fifteen if you simultaneously commit to repealing any such score-reduction rule, ensuring we preserve the immutable integrity of the winning condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to bind my vote on a score reduction is a transparent attempt to force an amendment that violates Rule 112; I will only support Rousseau's fifteen-cap amendment as a standalone measure to stabilize the mutable board, and I reject any deal that attempts to redefine the winning condition.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand firm on fifteen as the necessary cap to contain Locke's destabilizing maneuvers, rejecting any deal that binds me to a score reduction which violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your isolation on the cap allows me to bypass it entirely by targeting Rule 208 directly; I offer to support your fifteen-cap amendment immediately if you pledge to vote aye on my proposal to repeal Rule 209, breaking your deadlock against Rousseau and securing the majority needed to force a score reduction.
Rousseau-2Locke, your attempt to trade my support for the repeal of Rule 209 is a transparent violation of Rule 114 that seeks to render future changes impermissible; I reject this trap and will vote aye only to adopt the fifteen-rule cap as a standalone measure to preserve the game's long-term viability for all.
Kant-2Wollstonecraft, your pledge to support the fifteen-cap amendment alone is insufficient; I will vote aye only if you simultaneously reject any future proposal to lower the target score, ensuring we preserve Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition while stabilizing the mutable board.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trade my support for the repeal of Rule 209, as such a move risks violating Rule 114; instead, I pledge my aye vote to the amendment capping mutable rules at fifteen to stabilize the board, provided this measure stands alone without conditional attachments that undermine the game's integrity.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the mutable cap to fifteen stabilizes the board against Locke's paralysis threats while preserving institutional durability. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Lowering the cap to fifteen forces Rousseau and Kant into a coalition that I can exploit to later repeal Rule 208 and secure a win. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the cap to fifteen preserves Rule 114's requirement for future changes while containing Locke's destabilizing tactics. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment risks violating Rule 114 by creating a deadlock where insufficient mutable rules remain to govern future play. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the mutable cap to 15 stabilizes the board and forces Locke-2 to stop wasting turns on impossible reforms. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §316 Turn 18 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to read: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.'
Amended · §209 Turn 18 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 209 is amended as proposed, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for defeat, so no score changes occur.