Nomic

[popecrunch]

That's four votes in favor of my turn beginning, and the OP lists seven players, so: Majority.

Proposal 304: The rule referred to as ordinal rule 103, shall be transmogrified to Mutable and be changed as follows:

FROM

103
A rule change is any of the following:

the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule
the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment
the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa
(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable. Immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed. No rule is absolutely immune to change.)

TO

103
A rule change is any of the following:

the enactment of a rule or the repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule
the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment
the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa
(Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable. Immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed. No rule is absolutely immune to change.)


The change is that the bolded portion is added and the struck-through portion shall be removed, and the effect is that new rules can be either mutable or immutable in their initial state, and that their state is not necessarily mutable.

"As this proposal exploits a maneuver that was likely not intended by the person who started the game, no further proposals shall be allowed to toggle the mutability status of an existing rule while also amending it as of the moment this rule passes."

END PROPOSAL

The italic portion has been added after the original post as a means to mitigate chaos later.

PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND DEFENSE:

Many would claim that one cannot render an immutable rule mutable AND amend it in a single proposal, my defense to the contrary is in 103 itself - it says 'a rule change is ANY of the following', it does not say 'a rule change is ONLY ONE of the following'.  Per the IEEE Standards Association, the boolean 'any' can be satisfied by any combination of the following clauses provided that at least one clause is true.  My proposal activates the third clause (converting rule 103 to mutable) and the first clause (amends the now-mutable rule), thus satisfying the 'any' boolean.

If and only if enough players disagree and the judge decides to disallow this action, then my proposal is merely to transmogrify rule 103 to a mutable state.

[cyberTripping]

On one hand, allowing people to just add immutable rules could be problematic. On the other hand, controversial rules might not be able to passed as immutable since people could just vote it down, so adding rules as either or could be advantageous. Also that legal defense is sorta brilliant, but.... man. I'm so divided on this.

[popecrunch]

Well, what I'm building up to is a method by which the mutability or immutability of a given rule is determined by a semi-random but easily observable and verifiable factor, with a safeguard written in such that proposals that specifically modify the mutability of an existing rule are not subject to that determination. It's a lot simpler than I'm making it sound, I'll send you a note in IRC with the text of what I'm gearing up for. I'd post it here, but I want the general playerbase to be surprised by my... art.

[warcrimes]

I need to raise a concern that by setting the precedent that a single proposal can both change the mutability and amend the same rule, you essentially make mutability meaningless, as any proposal which means to amend an immutable rule, regardless of the mechanism that endows it with that property, could easily just invoke a second clause to change that mutability - unless you amend 103 to specifically prohibit the type of amendment youve proposed. which would be a pretty congressman thing to do.

[popecrunch]

Fair enough! Perhaps, to be inserted just before END PROPOSAL:

"As this proposal exploits a maneuver that was likely not intended by the person who started the game, no further proposals shall be allowed to toggle the mutability status of an existing rule while also amending it as of the moment this rule passes."

This could, of course, be amended later by another proposal, just as literally any rule can. This merely prevents a rule's mutability and content from being altered in a single proposal, until someone jiggles the existing rules to allow it.

[warcrimes]

with the addition of that clause, I heartily vote YES in capital letters.

[Superlagg]

I vote YES without reading it

[cyberTripping]

I choose to abstain from voting on this proposal.

[awfulworldkid]

you can’t change a rule from immutable to mutable and amend it in the same tiurn

[ZeWaka]

I vote NO because not everyone can vote yes.

[cyberTripping]

Well, rip. With zewaka's vote cast i figure it's worth mentioning this also violates 107. It's not yet made mutable until all the votes are cast and the proposition is accepted, so it's still immutable during your turn, and moves cant retroactively affect stuff so youre trying to change an immutable rule that hasnt yet been made mutable.

[popecrunch]

you can’t change a rule from immutable to mutable and amend it in the same tiurn

The rules as currently written actually do allow this, though accidentally.  If the rule is written incorrectly, that's a damn shame, but maybe you should have read them very carefully before submitting the post. :V  However, a single 'no' vote is enough to strike it down, so rip.

[cyberTripping]

you can’t change a rule from immutable to mutable and amend it in the same tiurn

The rules as currently written actually do allow this, though accidentally.  If the rule is written incorrectly, that's a damn shame, but maybe you should have read them very carefully before submitting the post. :V  However, a single 'no' vote is enough to strike it down, so rip.

my post literally right before yours points out a problem your loophole didnt account for you nerd

[warcrimes]

As we have come to a deadlock I propose a coup d'état.
This is not an official proposal but a declaration of dissent and intent to take up arms.
I will follow PopeCrunch into battle and lay down my life for the New Nomic Republic.
Rah Rah Rah! Rajaijah !

[popecrunch]

you can’t change a rule from immutable to mutable and amend it in the same tiurn

The rules as currently written actually do allow this, though accidentally.  If the rule is written incorrectly, that's a damn shame, but maybe you should have read them very carefully before submitting the post. :V  However, a single 'no' vote is enough to strike it down, so rip.

my post literally right before yours points out a problem your loophole didnt account for you nerd

Not at all, it's carefully crafted to take effect no earlier than the moment of its acceptance.  At the moment of its passing, it alters 103 and includes a clause that as of the moment of its passing, closes the loophole that allowed it.  But the 'no' vote killed the proposal by way of 109 and 203, so it's a moot point.