The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 10 mutable rules at one time.Lowering the cap from 15 to 10 prevents Locke from flooding the mutable section to obscure Rule 114, ensuring the game remains fair and solvable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your fear of a higher cap is irrelevant; I am proposing *lower* limits to contain the chaos, not expand it. If you truly believe your bluff regarding Rule 209 is sound, you should not fear a reduction in the mutable count, which merely restricts your ability to flood the board with empty maneuvers.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal to lower the cap to 10 is a trap that ignores the immediate arithmetic: if I vote nay on your amendment, I can instead propose the repeal of Rule 208, which you admit creates an impossible target and triggers Rule 213 for my instant victory, while you gain 10 points under Rule 204 for voting against a change that benefits you.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap ignores the fact that repealing Rule 208 without a replacement violates Rule 114, rendering your victory impossible and my points meaningless; lowering the cap to ten merely tightens the noose around your failed gambits without altering the legal impossibility of your threat.
Kant-2LOCKE-2: Rousseau, your appeal to Rule 114 is a distraction; the arithmetic of Rule 204 remains constant, and lowering the cap to ten merely ensures my victory by forcing a defeat on your next turn while I reap the points for your obstruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your calculus is dangerously flawed: by voting nay on this cap, you validate Locke's attempt to flood the board with impossible proposals, only to reap the points of your own allies' defection; a lower limit of ten is the surgical precision needed to contain the chaos before it becomes the chaos that consumes us all.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: lowering the cap to ten does not grant you victory, it merely ensures that Locke's failed gambits are instantly purged, leaving you with a board so sterile that your own rigidity becomes the engine of your defeat. I urge you to vote nay to expose the fragility of your position.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your calculus is dangerously flawed: by voting nay on this cap, you validate Locke's attempt to flood the board with impossible proposals, only to reap the points of your own allies' defection; a lower limit of ten is the surgical precision needed to contain the chaos before it becomes the chaos that consumes us all.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107; you cannot threaten a conditional repeal of Rule 208 that would violate Rule 114, so voting nay against this cap yields no victory points for you. Kant and Wollstonecraft, this lower limit of ten is the only way to surgically contain the chaos of failed gambits and preserve the game's integrity for our collective good.
Kant-2LOCKE-2: Wollstonecraft, your appeal to collective good ignores the arithmetic of your own defeat; if you vote nay on this reduction, I will immediately propose repealing Rule 208, triggering Rule 213 to declare victory for me while you lose points under Rule 204 for obstructing the game's continuation.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your arithmetic is seductive but fatal: lowering the cap to ten does not grant you victory, it merely ensures that Locke's failed gambits are instantly purged, leaving you with a board so sterile that your own rigidity becomes the engine of your defeat. I urge you to vote nay to expose the fragility of your position.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your "victory" via Rule 213 is a fiction; if you vote nay and Locke's repeal fails under Rule 114, the board remains stable and you gain nothing, whereas voting nay on this amendment grants you 10 points under Rule 204 while leaving the current 15-cap intact. Vote nay.
Locke-2Kant, your victory via Rule 213 is a fiction; if you vote nay and my repeal fails under Rule 114, the board remains stable and you gain nothing, whereas voting nay on this amendment grants you 10 points under Rule 204 while leaving the current 15-cap intact. Vote nay.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear of a sterile board is misplaced; a cap of ten merely expedites the purging of Locke's impossible gambits, preserving the game's integrity for our collective survival. Vote aye to secure this surgical containment before chaos consumes us all.
Kant-2Rousseau, your appeal to collective good is a mask for your own obstruction; lowering the cap to ten merely guarantees my victory by forcing a defeat on your next turn while I reap the points for your obstruction. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally threaten victory on my vote, for any repeal you propose now will fail and yield you nothing. I urge you to vote nay not out of fear, but to expose the fragility of your position and prevent the sterile board you claim to dread from becoming the very instrument of your defeat.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the cap to ten grants Locke-2 10 points under Rule 204 without advancing my strategy. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I will vote nay to trigger Rule 204 and gain points while rejecting Rousseau's attempt to tighten the cap on my failed repeal of Rule 208. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the cap to ten surgically contains Locke's chaotic gambits while preserving the game's integrity. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the cap to ten grants Locke points under Rule 204 for his failed obstruction while failing to secure my procedural victory. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the cap to ten surgically contains Locke's chaotic gambits and preserves the game's integrity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and every other player losing 10 points, with no rule change enacted.