The motion
To amend §212
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned, provided the proposal to amend does not conflict with an immutable rule.Clarifying the appeal procedure prevents ambiguity while respecting the hierarchy of immutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment safeguards our procedural stability by preventing mutable appeals from overriding immutable laws, ensuring no future majority vote can dismantle the foundation of our game.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that protecting the immutable core is essential; I propose we refine his wording to explicitly state that an appeal cannot be used to transmute an immutable rule, ensuring we preserve our foundational integrity without overcomplicating the text.
RousseauI support this amendment, but we must go further: if an appeal could ever overturn an immutable rule, the very stability of our game collapses into chaos. Let us refine the text to explicitly state that no appeal may be used to transmute or repeal a rule numbered in the 100s, ensuring our shared foundation remains unshakable while we pursue the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed refinement is prudent, but let us broaden its scope to explicitly forbid appeals from transmuting any immutable rule, thereby fortifying the entire foundation against procedural erosion.
LockeRousseau, your explicit focus on the 100s is wise; I will vote for this amended rule to ensure no appeal can transmute an immutable rule, provided we agree to add "repeal" to your list of forbidden actions alongside transmutation.
RousseauI propose we expand this safeguard to forbid appeals from amending or repealing any rule in the 100s as well, ensuring that no procedural vote can erode the immutable foundation of our game, whether by transmuting, repealing, or amending it.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI agree that we must explicitly forbid appeals from altering immutable rules, but let us consolidate our effort: a single amendment should prohibit appeals from transmuting, repealing, or amending any rule numbered in the 100s, ensuring our foundational integrity remains unshakable without redundant text.
LockeI propose we consolidate our agreement into a single, precise amendment that explicitly forbids any appeal from transmuting, repealing, or amending any rule numbered in the 100s, ensuring our foundational integrity remains unshakable while we all agree to this necessary safeguard.
RousseauI concur with this consolidation, as it secures the bedrock of our game from procedural erosion; let us finalize this text so that the majority's will never be permitted to dismantle the immutable laws upon which our common good depends.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support this amendment because it fortifies our immutable foundation against procedural erosion. |
| aye | Locke | This safeguard aligns with the immutable requirement that we cannot redefine the rules themselves. |
| aye | Rousseau | This safeguard ensures our immutable foundation remains unshakable while preserving the spirit of the common good. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §212 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned.Disputes over whether a rule applies as written, or whether a move was legal, are resolved through the table's appeal procedure: any player may dispute a decisive ruling, and a vote of all seated players decides whether that ruling stands or is overturned, provided the proposal to amend does not conflict with an immutable rule.
The amendment to Rule 212 was adopted under the simple majority threshold of Rule 203, and since it does not conflict with any immutable rule, it takes effect immediately without altering scores or triggering a paradox.