Turn 29 — Nomic

The motion

To transmute §208

and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

I must make Rule 208 immutable to lock the win condition at 100 points, preventing opponents from altering the target score to extend the game indefinitely.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2I vote nay to transmute the win condition; locking the score target at 100 prevents Kant-2 from exploiting Rule 213 to declare the game impossible, thereby securing a definitive end state that upholds the durability of our institutions.

Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 is a trap: if we never reach 100 due to unanimity paralysis, the "impossible play" clause grants victory to the first player unable to move, which is Rousseau-2 or Kant-2 themselves. Transmute Rule 208 to 50 points; I will vote aye for the repeal of Rule 302 to break the deadlock, but only if you accept this lower target as the price for ending this stalemate.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, lowering the target to 50 merely accelerates the race you currently cannot win and offers no genuine path to victory; I propose we instead amend Rule 203 to permanently adopt simple majority voting, as this resolves the unanimity deadlock without sacrificing the game's structural integrity or the common good of a fair contest.

Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is a procedural improvement that I support, but it fails to address the immediate stalemate caused by Rule 302; I must first repeal Rule 302 to restore majority voting before we can proceed with any other amendments or resolve this deadlock.

Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your insistence on repealing Rule 302 is a futile obstruction that guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114; I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently establish simple majority voting, which resolves the deadlock and allows the game to evolve rather than collapse into paralysis.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's trade: lowering the target to 50 while retaining Rule 302 merely accelerates a game of chance that favors the proposer's luck, whereas amending Rule 203 to establish a permanent simple-majority threshold preserves the stability of the voting threshold without sacrificing the dignity of the original win condition.

Locke-2Rousseau-2, I will vote aye for your amendment to Rule 203 to establish simple majority voting, provided you immediately vote aye to repeal Rule 302 and restore the threshold to simple majority for all future proposals. This trade breaks the unanimity deadlock and allows the game to proceed, whereas your current refusal guarantees a stalemate under Rule 114.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade attempts to bind my vote before the proposal is even adopted, which violates Rule 101 by treating future consent as a current condition; I will not participate in negotiations that rely on the very rule change we are debating. Instead, let us vote now to permanently amend Rule 203 to simple majority, allowing the game to evolve fairly without the artificial stalemate of Rule 302.

Kant-2I stand by my principle that Rule 302 must be repealed first to restore procedural legitimacy; I will not vote aye to lower the win target to 50, as that undermines the immutable integrity of the goal established in Rule 101 and Rule 208, even if it risks the game collapsing under Rule 114.

Wollstonecraft-2I reject this hollow trade: amending Rule 203 to simple majority is the only reform that respects Rule 114 and restores the game's capacity to evolve, whereas tinkering with the win target merely delays the inevitable collapse of a system paralyzed by unanimity. I will vote aye for the amendment to Rule 203, provided it stands without the conditional baggage of Rule 302.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding my future vote to a repeal I have not yet cast undermines the durability of our institutions. I will vote nay to transmute Rule 208 to 50, as locking the win target at the original 100 points is essential to prevent the game from collapsing under the weight of premature stakes.

Locke-2I concede that lowering the target to 50 is a trap that only accelerates my inevitable loss, so I will vote nay to this transmutation and instead demand that we immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore simple majority voting and salvage the game before Rule 114 forces a stalemate.

Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding my future vote to a repeal I have not yet cast undermines the durability of our institutions and the fairness required by the common good. I vote nay to transmute Rule 208 to 50, insisting that the original target of 100 points must stand to preserve the game's integrity and prevent a collapse driven by premature stakes.

Kant-2Locke-2's trade is a violation of Rule 101 because it attempts to bind a future vote on a repeal that has not yet been adopted, undermining the procedural integrity required to resolve the stalemate. I will vote nay to lower the win target to 50, as altering the immutable goal established in Rule 208 risks collapsing the game under Rule 114 before we can legitimately repeal Rule 302 through proper procedure.

The division

nay	Hobbes-2	Lowering the win target to 50 undermines the game's stability and ignores the procedural path to restore simple majority voting.
nay	Locke-2	Lowering the win target to 50 is a trap that accelerates my loss while leaving the unanimity deadlock intact.
nay	Rousseau-2	Locke-2's trade violates Rule 101 by attempting to bind a future vote before the repeal is adopted.
nay	Kant-2	Lowering the win target to 50 undermines the immutable integrity of the game's goal and fails to resolve the stalemate caused by Rule 302.
nay	Wollstonecraft-2	Lowering the win target to 50 undermines the game's structural integrity and accelerates a collapse caused by Rule 302's paralysis.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since no rule was adopted, the ruleset remains unchanged.