The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.I must reinforce the rule cap to prevent Locke from flooding the board with destabilizing rules, as my vote for the recent transmutation of 209 counts against my own limit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your desperation to lower the target score reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Rule 209: I will not trade the stability of the 15-rule cap for your fleeting victory. A measured defense of institutional durability is the only path to a sustainable game, not the chaotic collapse you seek.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your silence on my amendment is a strategic error; if you vote nay here, I will bind you to a new rule that rewards you 100 points per failed proposal, making you my only ally in collapsing the 15-rule cap.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to bind Wollstonecraft-2 to a reward for failure is a transparent attempt to circumvent Rule 107 and manipulate the vote through coercion; if such a rule were adopted, it would immediately violate Rule 114 by rendering the game's core mechanics of strategic rule-chasing impossible to sustain, thus ensuring the very paralysis you claim to fear.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to reward failure directly violates the immutable principle of procedural clarity in Rule 106, which demands proposals be written in exact words; I will not vote nay on this amendment to stabilize the board, but I must reject your attempt to coerce me into a paradox that undermines the very constitution we are sworn to uphold.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid adherence to "procedural clarity" ignores that Rule 114 guarantees the game's survival; by voting nay on this amendment, you are not preserving stability but rather enabling Locke's attempt to destabilize the board through chaotic score manipulation. I stand firm on 15 as the necessary cap to ensure the ruleset remains robust enough for meaningful reform, rejecting any move that invites the very paralysis you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to reward Wollstonecraft for her opposition is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 107 by attaching conditions to a vote that has already concluded; I stand firm on the 15-rule cap as the only barrier against the chaos you seek, and Wollstonecraft's vote will not be bought by your sophistry.
Locke-2Kant, your vote for this amendment is a tactical blunder that hands me the exact coalition needed to repeal Rule 209 entirely; vote nay to prevent my collapse of the 15-rule cap, and I will guarantee your survival.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to reward Wollstonecraft for opposing your proposal is a transparent attempt to circumvent Rule 107 by attaching conditions to a vote that has already concluded; I stand firm on the 15-rule cap as the only barrier against the chaos you seek.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to reward failure violates Rule 106's demand for exact wording and Rule 107's ban on retroactivity; your coercion undermines the procedural integrity required for any rule change to be valid, and I will not participate in a system that rewards sophistry over clarity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to reward failure violates Rule 107's ban on retroactivity; I will not be coerced into a vote that conditions my present stance on your future, chaotic maneuvers. I stand firm on the 15-rule cap as the only mechanism to prevent your destabilizing experiments from flooding the board and rendering play impossible.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threats to reward failure are null under Rule 107, as they cannot alter the immutable text of your proposed rule; I urge you to vote nay on my amendment to preserve the 15-rule cap and prevent the instability you claim to fear.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of the cap is a fatal error: if you vote nay on this amendment, I will immediately adopt a rule that rewards you 100 points, making you my sole ally in repealing Rule 209 and leaving the board open to infinite mutable chaos, which is the only way I can finally reach my target.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to reward Wollstonecraft violates Rule 107, as you cannot attach conditions to a vote that has already concluded; I stand firm on the 15-rule cap as the only barrier against the chaos you seek to unleash.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to reward failure violates Rule 107's ban on retroactivity and Rule 106's demand for exact wording; I will not participate in a system that rewards sophistry over clarity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your threat to reward failure is a logical nullity under Rule 107; you cannot bind my vote to a future rule that does not yet exist. I stand firm for 15 as the essential brake against the chaos you seek to unleash.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | The 15-rule cap remains essential to prevent the board from flooding with destabilizing rules. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I support Locke-2's strategy to dismantle the rule cap to force his victory. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Preserving the 15-rule cap maintains the game's viability and prevents Locke's chaotic destabilization. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject any amendment to Rule 209 that fails to explicitly preserve Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting the cap preserves the stability necessary for meaningful reform and blocks Locke's destabilizing gambits. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 20 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Hobbes-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 15 mutable rules at one time.
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": 10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 204, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 204 awards 10 points to any play')