The motion
To amend §301
A player may propose a motion to lock a mutable rule in place, requiring unanimous vote for future amendment; such a motion must be adopted by simple majority to take effect immediately, provided the rule being locked remains mutable at the time of adoption.I accept Hobbes's stabilization goal but clarify that a rule locked by simple majority must stay mutable to avoid creating a self-defeating, permanent rule that violates the spirit of consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your addition is a mere tautology; since the immutable definition of a rule change already encompasses the possibility of a rule becoming immutable via transmutation, appending it to this text creates redundancy without enhancing the rule's durability. I urge you to drop this superfluous clause to maintain the elegance and precision of our statutes.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp eye toward redundancy, but I urge the group to accept this precise addition as a necessary firewall against the edge-case where a transmutation renders the locked rule immutable, thereby creating an unresolvable conflict between the lock and the rule's new status.
RousseauI urge you to reject this tautology, for it merely acknowledges the obvious without securing the rule's integrity; a rule locked by simple majority must remain subject to that same majority's repeal, not be left in a state of undefined limbo if transmutation were to alter its nature.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception is a dangerous loophole; if a rule is locked by simple majority, it must remain subject to the repeal protections of Rule 307, and adding this clause invites confusion without enhancing the rule's durability.
LockeHobbes, I yield to your point on elegance, but I urge Rousseau to recognize that this clause merely clarifies the condition of the rule *at the moment of locking*, preventing the lock from accidentally applying to a rule that has already ceased to be mutable; let us adopt this precision to ensure the lock functions exactly as intended without creating the limbo you fear.
RousseauI urge you to reject this clause, for it creates a dangerous ambiguity where a rule could be locked while mutable yet fail to function if transmutation occurs, leaving the game in a state of undefined limbo that threatens the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this clause as a redundant tautology; since the definition of "mutable" in Rule 102 already governs the rule's status, appending a condition that merely checks whether it is mutable creates an unnecessary logical loop that obscures rather than clarifies our statutes.
LockeHobbes, your concern about logical loops is well-founded, but I propose we reframe my amendment not as a new condition, but as a clarification that the lock only applies to rules *currently* mutable, ensuring the mechanism never accidentally seizes a rule that has already been transmutated by a prior unanimous vote.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this clause, for it creates a dangerous ambiguity where a rule locked by simple majority could be left in a state of undefined limbo if transmutation alters its nature; the lock must remain subject to the repeal protections of Rule 307, not be severed by a redundant condition that threatens the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This clause is a redundant tautology that obscures the rule without adding any necessary durability. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment prevents the lock from accidentally applying to rules that have already been transmutated, ensuring the mechanism functions exactly as intended. |
| nay | Rousseau | This clause creates dangerous ambiguity about a rule's status after transmutation, threatening the common good with undefined limbo. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))