Turn 26 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, except that no rule change may reduce the minimum number of mutable rules permitted by the ruleset to fewer than one.

We must restore the floor to one mutable rule to prevent paralysis while rejecting the unjustified floor of two that Hobbes and Locke have imposed.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesRousseau, your addition to Rule 203 is redundant because Rule 319 already enforces a floor of two mutable rules, making your amendment legally void under Rule 110 and a waste of a turn under Rule 206. I urge you to abandon this ineffective proposal and instead focus on substantive changes that do not violate the existing immutable safety net we have already secured.

LockeHobbes, your assessment of redundancy is correct regarding the floor of two, but this amendment is strategically vital to prevent a future majority from eroding that safety by lowering the floor to one under the new Rule 209; I vote aye to preserve the game against potential paralysis, and I urge Rousseau to accept this protection while we focus our remaining turns on more productive rule changes.

RousseauLocke, your fear of future tyranny is misplaced; the very act of permanently lowering the floor to one mutable rule is the danger you claim to prevent. By binding us to this lower threshold now, you ignore Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future rule changes impermissible, for a single mutable rule cannot guarantee the game remains playable. I urge you to vote nay on this amendment, which merely codifies a fragile state rather than securing the common good of a vibrant, evolving game.

KantI vote nay on this amendment because it attempts to entrench a specific number (one) while ignoring Rule 114's prohibition against making future rule changes impermissible; a single mutable rule risks paralysis, and I must oppose any change that threatens the game's continuity, regardless of current scores.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your amendment is indeed redundant and legally void under Rule 110 since Rule 319 already secures a floor of two, rendering your addition a waste of a turn; I urge you to drop this proposal and instead propose a substantive change that expands the game's horizons rather than re-stating what we already possess.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 as Rule 319 already secures a floor of two, rendering this proposal a futile waste of a turn; I urge you to withdraw this redundant motion so we may focus our remaining turns on substantive changes that advance our collective interests.

LockeRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the superior, immutable floor of two established by Rule 319; please withdraw this motion to honor Rule 114 and preserve our collective ability to play.

RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the current floor of two for an immutable safeguard, but Rule 114 forbids any rule that renders future rule changes impossible, and locking us into two mutable rules risks exactly that by stifling necessary evolution; I urge you to vote nay on this redundancy so we may preserve the game's vitality.

KantI vote nay, as this amendment is void under Rule 110 due to its conflict with Rule 319's superior text establishing a floor of two; to propose a change that cannot be adopted is to waste a turn in violation of Rule 206, and I must not contribute to such futility.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your amendment is not merely redundant but legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 319's superior text establishing a floor of two; proposing this wastes your turn and diminishes our collective ability to enact the substantive reforms that truly expand the game's horizons.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the superior Rule 319 which already mandates a floor of two; attempting to enact a change that cannot take effect is a futile waste of your turn under Rule 206, and I urge you to withdraw this motion immediately.

LockeRousseau, since your amendment is void under Rule 110 due to conflict with Rule 319, I urge you to withdraw it to avoid wasting your turn under Rule 206 and instead propose a substantive change that genuinely expands the game's horizons.

KantI vote nay on this amendment because it is void under Rule 110 due to its conflict with Rule 319's superior text establishing a floor of two; proposing a change that cannot take effect wastes your turn in violation of Rule 206, and I must not contribute to such futility.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the superior text of Rule 319, which already secures a floor of two; proposing this waste of a turn under Rule 206 undermines our collective ability to enact the substantive reforms that truly expand the game's horizons.

The division

aye	Hobbes	I must support a majority vote to prevent a future simple majority from eroding the two-rule floor and risking paralysis.
nay	Locke	Rousseau's amendment is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the superior text of Rule 319, which already secures the floor at two mutable rules.
nay	Rousseau	Rule 319 already secures a floor of two, making this amendment void under Rule 110 and a waste of a turn under Rule 206.
nay	Kant	This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with the superior, immutable floor of two established by Rule 319.
nay	Wollstonecraft	This amendment is legally void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with the superior text of Rule 319, wasting your turn under Rule 206.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))