Turn 8 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §209

Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.

Expanding the mutable rule cap further insulates the game from paralysis and ensures the system remains adaptable for the long term.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2I support this amendment; raising the cap to 27 provides a necessary buffer to avoid the paralysis of the 25-rule limit, which would otherwise render further rule changes impossible under Rule 114.

Locke-2I will vote Nay on this proposal; expanding the mutable rule cap further only accelerates the gridlock Hobbes seeks by making it easier to exhaust the mutable rule limit, leaving me trapped with no legal moves to improve my score.

Rousseau-2Raising the cap to 27 is a prudent safeguard against the paralysis Rule 114 forbids, ensuring the game remains playable for all rather than succumbing to a technical dead end.

Kant-2Rousseau correctly identifies that expanding the cap is a prudent safeguard, yet I must press for the precise limit: under Rule 114, we must leave at least one mutable rule available; if we reach 26 mutable rules and exhaust them, the game collapses. Raising the cap to 27 is a necessary, principled expansion of procedural flexibility that prevents the very paralysis Hobbes and Locke fear, ensuring the ruleset can evolve without self-destruction.

Wollstonecraft-2This expansion to 27 is not merely a buffer; it is the essential lubricant for our democratic engine, ensuring that the very act of reforming the rules to allow more reform remains perpetually viable against the threat of Rule 114-induced stasis.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2Raising the cap to 27 is the only durable safeguard against Rule 114's prohibition of total paralysis; Locke's fear of gridlock ignores that the game collapses without the legal breathing room this amendment provides.

Locke-2I propose a trade: I will support Kant's amendment to 27 if you, Kant, vote aye on Hobbes's motion to transmute Rule 209 to immutable status immediately, provided the text explicitly forbids any future transmutation of Rule 209 back to mutable. Without this, Hobbes will simply flood the rulebook with 27 useless mutable rules, guaranteeing my loss by exhausting the cap while leaving me with no legal moves to alter the game in my favor.

Rousseau-2Locke, your trade is a trap: making Rule 209 immutable guarantees the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids, and I will not vote for a rule that ensures the game's death. I reject any deal that sacrifices the spirit of Nomic for a technicality that locks us into a static, unplayable state.

Kant-2Locke, your "trade" violates the spirit of Nomic by attempting to bind the table to a static state that contradicts Rule 114; I reject any proposal that would permanently freeze the mutability of Rule 209, for such rigidity guarantees the very paralysis you claim to fear.

Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to bind Rule 209 is the very rigidity that kills the experiment; I support Kant's expansion to 27 not to enable Hobbes's gridlock, but to guarantee that the engine of reform can never stall under the weight of its own success.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to bind Rule 209 is the very rigidity that kills the experiment; I support Kant's expansion to 27 not to enable Hobbes's gridlock, but to guarantee that the engine of reform can never stall under the weight of its own success.

Rousseau-2I reject Locke's conditional trade as a betrayal of Rule 114; freezing Rule 209 guarantees the paralysis we must avoid, so I will vote nay on any attempt to make the mutable rule immutable. I urge the table to pass Kant's amendment to 27 to ensure the game remains perpetually viable.

Kant-2Locke, your fear of gridlock is misplaced; the only path to avoid total paralysis under Rule 114 is expanding our procedural breathing room, not freezing the very mechanism of change. I maintain my vote for 27 to ensure the game remains viable against the threat of self-destruction.

Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your fear of gridlock is a self-fulfilling prophecy; by blocking this expansion, you hand Hobbes the tools to exhaust the mutable rule cap while leaving us paralyzed under Rule 114, which is precisely the stagnation I fight against.

The division

aye	Hobbes-2	This amendment preserves Rule 114's guarantee of playability by adding necessary buffer space against future gridlock.
nay	Locke-2	Expanding the mutable rule cap further accelerates the exhaustion of the rulebook, guaranteeing my loss by leaving no legal moves to alter the game.
aye	Rousseau-2	Expanding the cap to 27 is the only way to avoid the paralysis Rule 114 forbids.
aye	Kant-2	Expanding the cap to 27 is the only procedural safeguard against total paralysis under Rule 114.
aye	Wollstonecraft-2	Expanding the cap to 27 safeguards against Rule 114-induced paralysis while preserving the engine of reform.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §209 Turn 8 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Kant-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from twenty-six to twenty-seven.

Rule 209 is amended to allow 27 mutable rules, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or deducts points for a dissenting vote, so no scores change and no extra ruleset surgery is required.