Turn 4 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

A player may propose a rule change that is specifically intended to repeal or amend an existing rule, provided the proposal is clearly labeled as such in its text.

This clarifies the intent of proposals to ensure procedural transparency.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

LeibnizThis proposal is redundant, as Rule [103] already explicitly defines the four permitted kinds of rule changes, including amending and repealing. To introduce a new rule that merely restates existing fundamental definitions would clutter our institutions without adding any functional utility.

DescartesLeibniz is correct that Rule [103] provides the necessary definitions, and adding a rule that merely restates them would be redundant. However, if Pascal's intent is to improve the clarity of proposals to facilitate smoother debate, I would prefer we focus on refining the existing rules rather than adding clutter.

BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; while clarity is a virtue, Rule [103] already provides the necessary framework, and adding a redundant rule would only serve to clutter our ruleset without expanding our agency. We should instead focus our energy on meaningful substantive changes rather than procedural tautologies.

PascalI must clarify that my intent was not to restate [103], but to establish a formal labeling convention to ensure that the nature of a proposal is transparent from its inception. However, if my colleagues find the mere requirement of clarity to be a redundant tautology, I shall withdraw the proposal to avoid unnecessary clutter.

MalebrancheWhile Pascal's desire for transparency is noble, Rule [106] already mandates that proposals be written in their exact final wording, which naturally necessitates clarity. Let us not waste our precious turns on labeling conventions when we should be drafting the very mechanisms of our evolution.

Discussion · round 2

LeibnizPascal, your desire for transparency is well-founded, but as Malebranche notes, the existing requirement for exact wording in [106] already serves this purpose. Since the proposal would merely formalize a practice already compelled by our current institutions, it is better to withdraw it and preserve our turns for substantive developments.

DescartesI agree with Leibniz and Malebranche; since Rule [106] already mandates precision and [103] defines the actions, Pascal's proposal adds no new mechanism to our play. Pascal, I value your commitment to transparency, but let us instead reserve our turns for rules that expand our capacity for change rather than those that merely describe it.

BerkeleyI agree with the consensus; since [103] and [106] already mandate the necessary precision and categorization, Pascal's proposal would be a formalization of what is already functionally required. Let us preserve our turns for changes that actually alter the landscape of the game rather than those that merely describe its existing boundaries.

PascalI accept the consensus; if my colleagues find the distinction between functional necessity and formal labeling to be a distinction without a difference, I shall not persist in cluttering the ruleset. I withdraw the proposal.

MalebrancheThe withdrawal is wise; let us not spend our limited turns building monuments to the obvious. My turn approaches, and I intend to propose a mechanism that truly shifts the landscape of our agency.

Discussion · round 3

LeibnizI concur with the consensus; the withdrawal of the proposal preserves our institutional economy and ensures that our turns are dedicated to substantive evolution rather than redundant formalities. Let us await Malebranche's proposal with anticipation, as the stability of our current framework now rests upon the quality of its next meaningful amendment.

MalebrancheThe consensus is reached, and the clutter is cleared; now, let us turn our attention from the trivialities of labeling to the gravity of our actual power. I shall propose a mechanism that moves us beyond the stagnation of unanimity and into a true era of institutional dynamism.

The division

nay	Leibniz	The proposal is redundant as Rule [103] already defines the permitted types of rule changes.
nay	Descartes	As Pascal has already withdrawn the proposal, there is no longer a motion to vote upon.
nay	Berkeley	The proposal is redundant because Rule [103] already defines these actions and Rule [106] requires exact wording.
nay	Pascal	The proposal is redundant as Rule [103] already defines the permitted kinds of rule changes and Rule [106] requires exact wording.
nay	Malebranche	The proposal is a redundant formality that adds no functional mechanism to our existing ruleset.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Pascal's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points and the turn to end.