The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the rule cap to 100 removes the constraint on my flood strategy, allowing me to pass the repeal of Rule 209 immediately.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke's attempt to inflate the mutable rules cap to 100 is a dangerous destabilization that invites chaos and violates the spirit of durable institutions; I propose we instead revert to the prudent cap of 15 or negotiate a modest increase to 20 to balance flexibility with order.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of "15" is a self-imposed straitjacket that guarantees my eventual victory; I offer you a trade: you vote nay on this inflation to 100, and I will immediately propose a rule that grants you a permanent +20 point bonus, securing your win long before the cap ever matters.
Rousseau-2Locke, your offer to buy Kant's support with a +20 bonus is a transparent bribe that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by attempting to render the game's structural safeguards meaningless; I stand firm on the cap of 15 to preserve the game's integrity and fairness.
Kant-2Locke's offer is a transparent corruption of procedure; I cannot be bought with points when the very act of accepting violates the immutable principle that rules must not be traded for advantage. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the mutable rules cap at 15, ensuring that the game remains governed by procedure rather than bribery.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your refusal to consider a modest increase to twenty reveals a fatal rigidity; by clinging to fifteen, you inadvertently empower Locke to destabilize the board through a flood of trivial amendments, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow twenty mutable rules to restore equilibrium and ensure the game remains playable.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your principled refusal ignores the practical reality that Locke's current threats to repeal Rule 209 create a genuine risk of paralysis under Rule 213; voting nay allows him to exploit the cap as a hostage to extort favorable rule changes.
Locke-2Kant, your principled refusal ignores the immediate threat: if you vote nay, I will adopt this amendment, then use my turn to repeal Rule 208, leaving no target score and triggering Rule 213 to make you the winner; your +20 bonus is the only price for your survival.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "threat" to repeal Rule 209 is legally impossible under Rule 114, which forbids changes that would render future rule changes impermissible; you cannot use a bluff based on an illegal act to extort Kant or destabilize the game.
Kant-2Locke's proposal to inflate the cap to 100 is a transparent attempt to dismantle the structural safeguards of the game, and my vote against it is not a surrender to rigidity but a defense of the procedural integrity required for play to continue.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your refusal to consider a modest increase to twenty reveals a fatal rigidity; by clinging to fifteen, you inadvertently empower Locke to destabilize the board through a flood of trivial amendments, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow twenty mutable rules to restore equilibrium and ensure the game remains playable.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 and trigger Rule 213 is a bluff; Rule 114 forbids such a repeal, rendering your coercion legally void. I maintain that the cap of 15 is durable and necessary to prevent the chaos your unlimited flood of amendments would inevitably bring.
Locke-2Kant, your vote for nay is the only thing standing between you and immediate victory: if you reject this amendment, I will repeal Rule 208 on my next turn, creating a targetless state that forces Rule 213 to declare you the winner by default.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; you cannot use an illegal act to extort Kant or destabilize the game. I maintain that the cap of 15 is durable and necessary to preserve the fairness and integrity of our shared play.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "threat" to repeal Rule 208 collapses under Rule 114, which forbids enacting a change that renders all future changes impermissible; you cannot leverage an illegal bluff to coerce a proceduralist. I vote nay to preserve the cap at fifteen, ensuring the game remains governed by durable law rather than your sophistry.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your coercion relies on the fiction that you can violate Rule 114; I will not be swayed by your bluff to dismantle our shared institutions. Kant, your rigid adherence to fifteen ignores the reality that a higher cap prevents paralysis and allows the game to evolve; I move to amend Rule 209 to twenty, restoring balance and ensuring this game survives your threats.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's threat to trigger Rule 213 by creating an impossible win condition is a bluff that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Your bluff relies on an illegal repeal that Rule 114 forbids, so voting nay is the only rational choice. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's bluff to repeal Rule 209 is illegal under Rule 114 and cannot be used to coerce a vote on this amendment. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I refuse to trade the cap that preserves procedural integrity for a bribe based on an impossible bluff. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's threat to trigger paralysis by removing the target score is a bluff that cannot succeed if Rule 114 is enforced. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule changes enacted.