The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby transmutated to immutable status immediately upon adoption of this rule.Locking the mutable rule cap prevents opponents from flooding the system to block my future amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2A rule that freezes itself against the spirit of the 200-series creates a paradox of permanence in a mutable arena; if we do not build durable institutions now, the game will devolve into chaos or stasis, so let us vote nay and preserve the flexibility that keeps us all from losing.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your proposal violates the spirit of §109, which requires a transmutation to be the sole subject of a vote; bundling a status change with a new rule or amendment creates an invalid proposal that must fail. Vote nay to preserve the clarity of the process and ensure future transmutations are deliberate and uncontested.
Rousseau-2Locke-2 correctly identifies that bundling a transmutation with a new rule violates §109, so this proposal fails regardless of the vote. I urge you to pass your turn; if you propose an invalid rule now, you risk losing 10 points per §206 without advancing the game's stability.
Kant-2Your proposal fails regardless of the vote because it attempts to transmute a rule as a side effect of adoption, which §109 forbids; I vote nay to enforce the procedural purity of the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Hobbes-2, your attempt to bypass §109's requirement that transmutations be explicit subjects of a vote is procedurally fatal; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the amendment process, and I urge you to propose a standalone transmutation of Rule 209 if you truly seek stability.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2The proposal is procedurally dead due to §109's mandate that transmutations be the sole subject of a vote; persisting in this bundled approach only wastes a turn and costs me 10 points under §206. I will vote nay to enforce this procedural boundary and urge you to propose a clean, standalone transmutation if stability is your genuine goal.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your insight that bundled proposals violate §109 is decisive; I urge you to cast an aye on any future standalone transmutation of Rule 209, as securing that rule's immutability is essential to stabilizing the game against the chaos of endless flux.
Rousseau-2I urge Locke-2 to vote nay on any standalone transmutation of Rule 209; while stability is vital, we must not let Hobbes-2 freeze the mutable nature of our game and create a new source of rigidity that contradicts the spirit of Nomic. PASS
Kant-2I vote nay not only to uphold §109's prohibition on bundled transmutations but also to reject any future attempt to freeze mutable rules, as such rigidity undermines the procedural dynamism essential to a free game.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay to reject Hobbes-2's flawed attempt to bind a transmutation to a new rule, as it violates §109's mandate for explicit, standalone votes; instead, I urge a separate proposal to make Rule 209 mutable only after a full circuit of play, ensuring stability without freezing the game's evolutionary potential.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I retract my objection to the bundled proposal only if we can immediately agree to make Rule 209 immutable once adopted, ensuring that no future transmutation can ever re-mutate it, regardless of subsequent votes.
Locke-2I will vote nay on any standalone transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as freezing the mutable nature of the game creates a dangerous precedent that contradicts the spirit of Nomic and risks rendering future adaptation impossible.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against any attempt to freeze Rule 209, as rigidity contradicts the very spirit of Nomic; let us focus our energy on crafting a balanced amendment that preserves the game's evolutionary potential for all.
Kant-2I stand firm that any attempt to freeze mutable rules violates the essential procedural dynamism of Nomic, and I will vote nay on any motion to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on any attempt to freeze Rule 209, for rigid institutions strangle the very evolution we need to survive; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to require a simple majority for transmutation after the first circuit, ensuring stability without stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Bundling a transmutation violates §109 and wastes a turn with no chance of success. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Bundling a transmutation violates §109, making this proposal procedurally void regardless of the vote. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Freezing Rule 209 contradicts the game's spirit and risks future instability. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A bundled transmutation violates the procedural purity of §109 and undermines the dynamism essential to Nomic. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This bundled proposal violates §109, which requires transmutations to be the sole explicit subject of a vote. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.