311 All Changeable [N]

[Gary Lynch]

Thought I would start the next one even though we are still waiting for Ross.

 

I propose that all rules prior to this become mutable.

[Ben Titmarsh]

This would blow away one of the core aspects of the game. I'm going to say my first No, sorry Gary.

[Kieran Symington]

Not so fast, Titmarsh! Time for my favourite passtime of pointing out illegal moves made by Gary.
I think this proposal needs to be amended as it "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" as per rule 111:

111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

This is because a proposal can only transmute one mutable rule as per Gary's favourite rule 103:

103 states that a proposal must be: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

[Dan Barrett]

"consists of two or more rule-changes compounded"

Wish i'd found this to discuss Tom's previous suggestion.

RTFR, Dan!

[Gary Lynch]

Ok I'm confused. Tom said last time that if I changed 103 to mutable I could then make all rules mutable.

Ben I don't think this ruins anything. Could you explain why you think it does.

Dan I don't believe toms proposal changed more than 1 rule as none of the stuff he mentioned was on the previous rules. It has been done in previous games, check the links Tom originaly posted.

Kieran Symington said:

Not so fast, Titmarsh! Time for my favourite passtime of pointing out illegal moves made by Gary. I think this proposal needs to be amended as it "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" as per rule 111:
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

This is because a proposal can only transmute one mutable rule as per Gary's favourite rule 103:

103 states that a proposal must be: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

[Kieran Symington]

Not only does making all the rules mutable break 103 (now 304) that says your proposal can only transmute one immutable rule, but if you change all the rules to mutable, it breaks rule 209, which would have to change to allow this:

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

You need to alter rule 103 (304) so it allows the changing of immutable rules without having to transmute them to mutable rules first. Something like this would do it:

304. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable or immutable rule; or (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable or immutable rule.

That way, immutable rules stay as immutable, but there is no longer a difference between them and mutable rules.

[Gary Lynch]

Kieran Symington said:

Not only does making all the rules mutable break 103 (now 304) that says your proposal can only transmute one immutable rule, but if you change all the rules to mutable, it breaks rule 209, which would have to change to allow this:

209. At no time may there be more than 25 mutable rules.

You need to alter rule 103 (304) so it allows the changing of immutable rules without having to transmute them to mutable rules first. Something like this would do it:

304. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable or immutable rule; or (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable or immutable rule.

That way, immutable rules stay as immutable, but there is no longer a difference between them and mutable rules.

Will this work??

[Ben Titmarsh]

Gary - one of the (very few) rules of Nomic is that you have a selection of mutable and immutable rules and that the number of mutable rules is limited. Creating a proposal to arbitrarily change everything to mutable because you are fed up of the immutable rules doesn't seem interesting or necessary which is why (even without the rule breaches) I declined this one.

Gary Lynch said:

Ok I'm confused. Tom said last time that if I changed 103 to mutable I could then make all rules mutable.

Ben I don't think this ruins anything. Could you explain why you think it does.

Dan I don't believe toms proposal changed more than 1 rule as none of the stuff he mentioned was on the previous rules. It has been done in previous games, check the links Tom originaly posted.

Kieran Symington said:

Not so fast, Titmarsh! Time for my favourite passtime of pointing out illegal moves made by Gary. I think this proposal needs to be amended as it "arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded" as per rule 111:
111. If a rule-change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or destructive of play, or if it arguably consists of two or more rule-changes compounded or is an amendment that makes no difference, or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote. A reasonable time must be allowed for this debate. The proponent decides the final form in which the proposal is to be voted on and, unless the Judge has been asked to do so, also decides the time to end debate and vote.

This is because a proposal can only transmute one mutable rule as per Gary's favourite rule 103:

103 states that a proposal must be: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.

[Paul Young]

no

[Thomas David Baker]

My suggestion was to make 103 mutable so that someone could repeal or alter it as a future move at which point all rules would then be mutable.

Kieran's version would work but I guess with these no votes that isn't going to happen.

I vote "no" for purely tactical reasons even though I would actually like this rule change to be enacted.

[Tiff Leek]

I'm not sure what is going on, exactly, so will resort to my standard needmoredata No.

[Dan Barrett]

Anyways, no.

[Gary Lynch]

Ok its starting to turn into a no fest.

Ross still to vote on the last proposal and I guess that makes it his turn, unless cause mine was illegal I get to make another one?