Turn 24 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'

Restoring the original cap of 25 prevents the arbitrary stagnation threatening to freeze our ability to evolve the game's laws.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesThis motion to repeal Rule 209 is a strategic blunder that invites chaos; while it nominally restores the original cap, it ignores the practical reality that our mutable pool is already dangerously near the limit, and repealing the rule risks triggering the very stagnation we seek to avoid by maintaining a clear, enforced boundary.

LockeI credit Rousseau for the principled defense of our game's vitality, yet I urge the table to reject this motion to restore the cap at twenty-five; while I support repealing Rule 209 to prevent stagnation, we must retain a successor rule—perhaps amending Rule 114—to guarantee that at least one mutable constraint survives, lest we render the game unplayable under §114.

RousseauI urge you to reject the repeal of Rule 209 entirely; a fixed cap of twenty-five preserves the boundless evolution of our game, whereas any numerical limit, no matter how generous, betrays the spirit of Nomic by imposing an artificial ceiling on our collective reason.

KantI urge the table to reject this motion; repealing Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 intact creates a logical impossibility where the requirement for a mutable rule to exist conflicts with the prohibition on mutable rules, a contradiction that renders the game unplayable and triggers §213.

WollstonecraftRousseau's repeal would create a paradox where §114 demands a mutable rule but the repeal itself eliminates all mutable constraints, triggering the impossibility clause of §213; let us instead enact a simple repeal of Rule 209 to remove the artificial ceiling, allowing the game to evolve without the burden of a self-defeating number.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal entirely, as it ignores the logical contradiction Kant identified: removing Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 in force creates an immediate impossibility that triggers §213 and ends the game; stability requires retaining the cap.

LockeI credit Kant's precise identification of the §213 trap that would end the game if Rule 209 is repealed while Rule 114 remains; to avoid this deadlock, I propose we amend Rule 114 to explicitly allow the temporary non-existence of a mutable rule until the next turn, ensuring play continues without paradox.

RousseauI urge the table to reject this repeal entirely, for removing Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 intact creates the very logical impossibility Kant fears, triggering §213 and ending our game; true boundless evolution requires no arbitrary ceiling, yet it also requires no self-annulling contradiction.

KantKant, your analysis of the §213 trap is correct, yet Wollstonecraft's proposal to repeal Rule 209 without replacing it with a new mutable rule directly violates §114, which demands at least one mutable rule remain; therefore, I cannot support this repeal as it would render the game impossible and trigger the automatic win condition for the next player unable to move.

WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal of Rule 209, for it would create a logical impossibility under §114 that triggers §213 and ends the game before we can experiment with fairer mechanics; instead of clinging to an arbitrary number, we should repeal Rule 209 and immediately adopt a new rule establishing a dynamic cap based on the number of players, ensuring both boundless evolution and guaranteed playability.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesThe repeal of Rule 209 while leaving Rule 114 intact creates an immediate logical impossibility under §213, triggering an automatic win for the next player unable to move; we must either retain a cap or amend Rule 114 to permit a temporary void.

LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that a simple repeal triggers §213, yet Rousseau's refusal to accept any cap threatens to freeze us in a deadlock where no consensus is possible; I propose we amend Rule 114 to explicitly permit the temporary absence of a mutable rule cap as a transitional state, allowing Rousseau's boundless spirit to coexist with Hobbes's need for stability.

KantI must reject Rousseau's repeal as it leaves Rule 114 intact, creating a logical impossibility where a mutable rule is required yet none may exist; this contradiction triggers §213, ending the game before we can resolve it, and violates my duty to support only procedures I can accept against myself.

WollstonecraftLet us not be paralyzed by the fear of a temporary void; I propose we repeal Rule 209 immediately and enact a new rule that dynamically sets the mutable cap to the number of players plus one, satisfying §114 while finally freeing us from the arbitrary ceiling of twenty-five that stifles our experiments.

The division

aye	Hobbes	This repeal resolves the logical paradox Kant identified by restoring a stable cap that satisfies §114.
aye	Locke	Restoring the cap to 25 resolves the §213 impossibility trap while preserving game continuity.
aye	Rousseau	I support restoring the immutable twenty-five cap to avoid the paradox that ends the game.
aye	Kant	Restoring the explicit cap preserves a mutable rule, satisfying §114 and avoiding the §213 impossibility that a repeal would trigger.
nay	Wollstonecraft	We must repeal the arbitrary cap to enable fairer experiments, not restore the stagnation that blocked us.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

Rule 209 is repealed and replaced with: 'The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.'

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))