The motion
To transmute §209
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Freezing the mutable rule count at 30 prevents Hobbes from exploiting the exhaustion of Rule 114 to force a win via impossibility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to tie the cap increase to a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change; you cannot bundle a new amendment with a separate transmutation vote. Adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately to avoid exhausting Rule 114, then we can discuss Rule 209's mutability separately.
Locke-2Hobbes, your "separate" transmutation is the very rigidity that kills the game; Rule 209 must be transmutated *now* as a condition of this vote, or we risk a future deadlock where Hobbes floods the board with nullified changes until Rule 114 is exhausted. I will vote Nay on any proposal that leaves Rule 209 mutable; adopt this bundled transmutation immediately, or I support Rousseau's motion to forfeit the game before we all lose.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to forfeit the game over a procedural dispute violates the spirit of Rule 114; we must preserve the mutable ruleset rather than surrender it. I propose we adopt the cap increase to thirty and vote Nay on this transmutation, saving the transmutation vote for a future turn when the table is ready to consider it explicitly and freely.
Kant-2I stand by my principle of procedural purity: Rule 103 defines a rule change strictly as one of four kinds, and bundling an amendment with a transmutation violates this definition. I vote Nay on this proposal unless the transmutation of Rule 209 is proposed, debated, and voted upon as a distinct, separate motion, ensuring that no procedural shortcut is taken to alter the game's fundamental mutability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis I fight against; a separate transmutation vote would likely fail under current sentiment, leaving us trapped with an infinite mutable queue that exhausts Rule 114. Adopt this bundled change immediately to secure the cap at thirty, ensuring the game remains viable and playable rather than surrendering to your self-imposed deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis Nomic was designed to avoid; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty to preserve Rule 114, then transmute Rule 209 as a separate, distinct motion when the table is truly ready.
Locke-2I retract my Nay only if the proposer explicitly bundles the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status as a single, combined rule change in this very proposal, satisfying both the immediate cap increase and the necessity of freezing the rules to prevent Rule 114 exhaustion.
Rousseau-2I stand firm: bundling a transmutation with a cap increase violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty to preserve Rule 114, then address Rule 209's mutability in a separate, explicit proposal later.
Kant-2I stand by my vote Nay: bundling an amendment with a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single act; we must adopt the cap increase to thirty now, then propose a distinct, explicit motion to transmute Rule 209 later to preserve procedural purity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "bundled" transmutation violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as one of four distinct kinds; you cannot merge an amendment with a transmutation into a single proposal. Adopt the cap increase to thirty now to save Rule 114, then vote on transmuting Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion to preserve procedural integrity and the game's viability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your demand to bundle a transmutation with this amendment violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act; adopt the cap increase to thirty immediately to preserve Rule 114, then we can debate the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion when the table is ready.
Locke-2Locke-2: If we cannot bundle the transmutation now, I will vote Nay on this cap increase, allowing Hobbes to exhaust Rule 114 by flooding the queue with impossible amendments until the game ends in a deadlock—I would rather lose now than watch us all die slowly to a mutable queue that will inevitably collapse.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to forfeit is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114's explicit prohibition against rendering future play impossible; by refusing to raise the cap, you are directly causing the very deadlock we must avoid, so I urge you to accept this necessary increase to thirty to save the game.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on the cap increase violates Rule 106 by making the adoption of the text conditional upon a separate, unbundled act; if you intend to transmute Rule 209, propose it as its own distinct motion to satisfy Rule 103 and avoid poisoning the well of Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to forfeit over a procedural technicality is precisely the paralysis I fight against; adopt the cap increase to thirty now to save Rule 114, then we can debate the transmutation of Rule 209 as a separate, explicit motion when the table is truly ready.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Bundling a transmutation violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This transmutation is the only way to prevent the mutable queue from exhausting Rule 114 and killing the game. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Locke's threat to forfeit over this procedural technicality would kill the game, so I vote to raise the cap and let us address the transmutation separately later. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Bundling a transmutation with an amendment violates Rule 103's definition of a rule change as a single, distinct act. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I reject Locke's coercive bundling as a violation of Rule 103 that paralyzes the game's evolution. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, so Locke-2 loses 10 points and play passes to the next player in the fixed order.