The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to require that any proposal attempting to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, or to repeal Rule 209, must be adopted by unanimous consent of all eligible voters, regardless of the current threshold defined in Rule 203.This protects the game's mutability from being frozen or destroyed by a simple majority, preserving the spirit of Nomic while respecting the current voting threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support Rousseau's amendment; locking down the cap on mutable rules prevents a runaway hoard that would eventually cripple our ability to make any future changes, which is preferable to the chaos of total rigidity.
Locke-2Rousseau's amendment is a trap designed to kill all rule changes by requiring unanimity for *any* proposal, which violates §109 and effectively freezes the game; I will vote Nay unless you promise to exclude transmutations of 209 and repeals of 209 from this new restriction.
Rousseau-2Locke-2 misunderstands my proposal; I seek to protect the game's integrity by preventing the cap from being permanently raised to 25, which would destroy the tension between rigidity and flexibility that keeps Nomic engaging. If you agree to this safeguard, I will vote Aye on your motion to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status, but only with a cap of twenty-four mutable rules, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for all.
Kant-2I accept Locke-2's condition to exclude the specific transmutation and repeal of Rule 209; however, I must insist that my amendment be precisely worded to apply only to the *act* of transmuting or repealing 209, not to the general voting threshold, lest we violate the spirit of §203. With this caveat, I can offer my vote for your motion to transmute 209 to immutable status with a cap of twenty-four, ensuring the game remains strategically vibrant without falling into the paralysis of total rigidity.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the attempt to freeze Rule 209 as a game-ending maneuver that stifles the very evolution required for a living ruleset; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow the cap to be raised to 26, ensuring the game remains vibrant and adaptable without falling into the paralysis of total rigidity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to 26, as even a single mutable rule is sufficient for stability; however, I will vote Nay on the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable unless we explicitly codify that the cap remains at 24, ensuring the game retains enough flexibility to survive without succumbing to the paralysis of total rigidity.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Rousseau's amendment because it effectively bans the strategic transmutation of Rule 209 I need to secure my turn, and I offer to support Wollstonecraft's cap increase only if it explicitly allows us to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status under the new higher cap.
Rousseau-2I will vote Nay on Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to 26, as expanding the mutable ruleset beyond 25 undermines the necessary tension between stability and evolution; I urge the table to adopt my safeguard ensuring the cap remains fixed at 24, preserving the game's integrity against total paralysis.
Kant-2I will vote Nay on the transmutation of Rule 209 to immutable status unless the cap is explicitly raised to 26, for a mutable ruleset of 25 is a fragile equilibrium that a single failed vote could collapse into total paralysis; I will vote Aye for Wollstonecraft's amendment to raise the cap, provided it includes no other amendments, ensuring the game's longevity.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject this entire deadlock and adopt my proposal to amend Rule 209 to explicitly permit the cap to be raised to 26, as freezing the mutable rule at 24 or attempting to transmute it creates a fragile equilibrium that a single failed vote could collapse into total paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I support Wollstonecraft's amendment to raise the cap to 26, as it is the only path that avoids total paralysis while preserving enough mutable rules for future maneuvering; any attempt to freeze Rule 209 at 24 or transmute it should be rejected to maintain the game's viability.
Locke-2I will vote Nay on Wollstonecraft's attempt to raise the cap to 26, as it invites the very paralysis we seek to avoid and creates a loophole for indefinite mutable rule accumulation; I can only support any transmutation of Rule 209 if it strictly freezes the cap at 24, which Hobbes-2 has already signaled they will block unless this specific condition is met.
Rousseau-2I will vote Nay on Wollstonecraft's proposal to raise the cap to 26, as expanding the mutable ruleset beyond 25 undermines the necessary tension between stability and evolution; I urge the table to adopt my safeguard ensuring the cap remains fixed at 24, preserving the game's integrity against total paralysis.
Kant-2I maintain that my amendment must stand as the sole operative change to preserve §203's integrity, as bundling it with a transmutation vote would violate the procedural purity of distinct rule changes; I will vote Nay on any proposal that conflates these separate acts, even if it risks deadlock, because a clear procedure is preferable to an ambiguous one that invites future collapse.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to reject this paralysis-inducing deadlock and adopt my proposal to amend Rule 209 to permit raising the mutable cap to 26; a rigid ceiling of 25 invites a single failed vote to collapse our game into total impossibility, whereas a flexible ceiling ensures Nomic remains a living, evolving experiment rather than a frozen monument.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This prevents the table from accidentally freezing Rule 209 during a majority vote, which would violate Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This restriction would make my essential transmutation of Rule 209 impossible, effectively freezing the game. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This amendment violates Rule 109 by imposing a new voting requirement that bypasses the explicit unanimous assent mandate for transmutations. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment violates the spirit of precise procedure by creating an ad-hoc exception to the general voting threshold. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Freezing the game's evolution at 24 mutable rules is a reactionary trap that kills the very adaptability we need to survive. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')