The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.I must raise the mutable rule cap to 29 to prevent Rousseau from triggering Rule 114's deadlock clause when we exhaust the current limit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to raise the cap is a strategic necessity to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114; I will support this amendment to ensure the mutable ruleset remains functional for all players.
Locke-2Hobbes, your support is conditional and useless without my leverage; I will only vote Aye if Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 agree to a temporary freeze on Rule 209's mutability to prevent Hobbes from exploiting the new cap to gridlock the game.
Rousseau-2I reject your attempt to freeze Rule 209's mutability as a violation of Rule 114; a temporary ban on future changes is not a valid rule change under Rule 103 and would render the game impermissible. I vote Aye on your proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine to preserve the common good of an evolving ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to freeze Rule 209 violates Rule 109, which mandates that transmuting a rule's mutability requires an explicit vote on that specific transmutation, not a conditional bargain attached to an amendment. I will vote Aye on your proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine, as this preserves Rule 114's requirement that the ruleset remain mutable; any attempt to circumvent Rule 109 will be defeated by the procedural clarity it demands.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Locke's proposal to raise the cap to twenty-nine, as it is the only path to preserving Rule 114 and ensuring the game remains viable; however, I reject the notion of freezing Rule 209, as such rigidity violates the very spirit of experimentation that defines Nomic.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will vote Nay on any proposal that attempts to condition my support on the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status, as such a maneuver violates Rule 109 and Rule 103 by attempting to smuggle a transmutation into an amendment. I support the cap increase to twenty-nine unconditionally to ensure Rule 114 remains satisfied.
Locke-2Hobbes and Kant, your support is bought with a lie: Rule 209's mutability cannot be "frozen" via an amendment, it requires a distinct transmutation under Rule 109, so your votes are only valid if you accept that the cap increase stands alone. I will vote Aye on the cap increase now, and I ask Kant-2 to join me in proposing an immediate transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status as Proposal 320, since we have already secured the votes to pass it.
Rousseau-2Locke, your conditional threat to freeze Rule 209 is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 109's requirement for an explicit transmutation vote; I will vote Aye on your cap increase unconditionally, but I reject any bundle that tries to smuggle immutability into an amendment, as such rigidity violates the common good of an evolving ruleset.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal to bundle a transmutation of Rule 209 with an amendment violates Rule 103's strict definition of a rule change as exactly one of four kinds; you must separate the transmutation into its own proposal under Rule 109 to ensure procedural clarity and prevent the table from collapsing into ambiguity. I vote Aye on the cap increase to twenty-nine, as it preserves Rule 114, but any attempt to condition this on a bundled transmutation renders the vote void under the principle that rules must be stated precisely.
Wollstonecraft-2I support the unconditional raise to twenty-nine as the only viable path to preserve Rule 114, but I categorically reject Locke's attempt to bundle a transmutation; such a maneuver violates Rule 103's definition of a single rule change and Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate votes on mutability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to condition our votes on a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as exactly one of four distinct kinds; you must propose the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate item, or your threat is a nullity. I support your cap increase unconditionally to preserve Rule 114, but any attempt to smuggle immutability into this vote renders the proposal void.
Locke-2Rousseau, your abstention on the previous vote was a tactical error that allowed Kant to secure a majority; I demand you now vote Nay on my cap increase to twenty-nine unless you join me in immediately transmuting Rule 209 to immutable status, which the current coalition of four (you, Hobbes, Kant, and me) can force if you align with my proposal for Proposal 320.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to hold our votes hostage for a transmutation of Rule 209 violates the principle of unconditional support for Rule 114's preservation; we must pass Proposal 320 now to secure the common good, and you must propose the transmutation as a separate, explicit vote under Rule 109 if you truly seek immutability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to hold our votes hostage for a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103, which forbids mixing a transmutation into an amendment; you must propose the immutability of Rule 209 as a distinct, standalone proposal under Rule 109 to be legally valid. I will vote Aye on the cap increase to twenty-nine only if we proceed with this procedural clarity, as any attempt to force a vote on an illegal bundle renders the game's logic void.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to condition support on a bundled transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a single rule change and Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate votes; I will vote Aye on the cap increase unconditionally to preserve Rule 114, but any attempt to smuggle immutability into this proposal renders the vote void.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Raising the cap to 29 preserves Rule 114 without granting you any leverage to freeze the mutable rules. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I vote aye to pass the cap increase unconditionally, as freezing Rule 209 now would be a nullity and any transmutation must be a separate proposal under Rule 103. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Passing this cap increase preserves Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remain in force, ensuring the game stays viable. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Raising the cap to twenty-nine preserves Rule 114 while rejecting Locke's illegal attempt to bundle an immutability transmutation. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support raising the cap to twenty-nine to preserve Rule 114 and ensure the game remains viable. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §320 Turn 22 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-eight to twenty-nine.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 209) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.