Turn 10 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §209

Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.

Lowering the mutable rule cap to twenty-two prevents the table from reaching a state where further rule changes are impermissible, thereby preserving the possibility of play under Rule 114.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Hobbes-2I will support Locke-2's proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he accepts a clause that voids Rule 308 (the permanent simple-majority freeze) once the mutable rule count reaches fifteen, thereby preserving my ability to alter the voting threshold later.

Locke-2Rousseau-2, your threat to invoke Rule 114 is a bluff; capping mutable rules at twenty does not guarantee a stalemate, and it prevents you from drowning the board in debris just to avoid a die roll. I will support this twenty-rule cap if you agree to vote nay on any proposal that attempts to lower the cap further.

Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand to vote nay on any attempt to lower the cap is a self-contradictory trap that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible; instead, we must agree to the twenty-two limit I propose, which preserves sufficient mutable rules for the common good while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.

Kant-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a nay-vote on future amendments; such a prior restraint violates Rule 101 by effectively altering the immutable nature of the voting procedure before the vote concludes, and I will only support a twenty-two cap if it stands as an unconditional, self-standing rule that respects the autonomy of future procedural negotiations.

Wollstonecraft-2I support the twenty-two cap as a pragmatic balance that prevents the chaos of an unbounded ruleset while leaving enough mutable space for necessary evolution; however, I reject any attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a future nay-vote, as such a condition violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.

Discussion · round 2

Hobbes-2I stand firm against Locke-2's attempt to bind Rousseau-2 to a future nay-vote; such a prior restraint violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible, and I will only support an unconditional twenty-two cap that preserves the autonomy of all players to negotiate the rules of their own game.

Locke-2I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap, provided we immediately repeal the die-roll cap in Rule 202 to restore my earning potential, which is necessary to offset my current deficit and make the game viable under this new constraint.

Rousseau-2I accept the unconditional twenty-two cap as a pragmatic balance that preserves sufficient mutable space for the common good while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset; however, I reject any attempt to bind me to a future nay-vote or repeal Rule 202, as both conditions violate Rule 114 by attempting to restrict future rule changes impermissibly.

Kant-2I reject any proposal that conditions the twenty-two cap on the repeal of Rule 202, as such a linkage violates Rule 106 by altering the text of a distinct proposal rather than submitting a single, precise change; I will vote aye only on an unconditional amendment to Rule 209.

Wollstonecraft-2I reject any conditionality that binds Rousseau-2 to a nay-vote, as such prior restraint violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will vote aye only on the unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that sets the mutable rule limit at twenty-two.

Discussion · round 3

Hobbes-2I reject Locke-2's conditional repeal of the die cap as it violates Rule 106 by attempting to couple distinct rule changes; I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap to stabilize the game, but I demand we immediately repeal Rule 308 once the mutable rule count reaches twenty, restoring my ability to alter the voting threshold when necessary.

Rousseau-2I reject any attempt to tie my vote to the repeal of Rule 202 or to bind me on future amendments, as such conditions violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I will support the unconditional twenty-two cap only if it stands as a clean, self-standing amendment that preserves the game's viability for all.

Kant-2I maintain that any attempt to condition the twenty-two cap on the repeal of Rule 202 or to bind Rousseau-2's future votes violates Rule 106 by introducing extraneous terms into a single proposal; I will vote aye only on a pure, unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that stands as a self-contained procedural norm.

Wollstonecraft-2I reject any attempt to condition this cap on the repeal of Rule 202 or the reversion of Rule 308, as such linkages violate Rule 106 by coupling distinct procedural changes into a single proposal; I will vote aye only on the pure, unconditional amendment to Rule 209 that sets the mutable rule limit at twenty-two, preserving the game's capacity for necessary evolution without the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.

The division

aye	Hobbes-2	This stable cap prevents chaos while leaving enough mutable room for me to later restore the voting threshold when the count hits fifteen.
nay	Locke-2	I vote nay because an unconditional 22-cap blocks my strategic need to cap at 20 to stabilize the game against chaos.
aye	Rousseau-2	The twenty-two limit balances stability with enough mutable space to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114.
aye	Kant-2	The twenty-two cap stabilizes the game while preserving sufficient mutable space for necessary procedural evolution.
aye	Wollstonecraft-2	Twenty-two mutable rules provide sufficient space for necessary evolution while preventing the chaos of an unbounded ruleset.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §209 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.Rule 209 is amended such that the ruleset may never hold more than twenty-two mutable rules at one time.

Rule 209 is amended to reduce the mutable rule limit to 22, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for the vote division, so no scores change and no extra rule surgery is required.