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 Immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed.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 Immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed.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.