Rules (Unrevised)

Revise this, it's just a brainstorming thread for now.

The basic premise of New World Order is to allow users to vote for new, fundamental rules of a new universe, whereas the winning alternative of user-posted polls will be a set-in-stone constant or a natural law for the new in-game universe. E.g. pi = 2, Earth's surface gravity = 5 m/s^2. Other threads can in turn refer to this new rule.

The goal is for someone to find a valid argument for the end of human existence due to contradiction, physical invalidity, continuity or such, and the round will end.

Ideally, whoever posts the valid reason for the end, and the person who posted the relevant poll should gain points.

Would it not be possible to devise a new set of natural constants that permitted the continuity of human existence?

Likely, and thus, anyone being able to spot potentially dangerous changes should alert others about it as swiftly as possible before the voters bring the round toward endgame.

It should be interesting to see the evolution of strategies in the New World Order game.

Also, any ideas about how to judge such a game? Some of the arguments given may be fairly in-depth? Judging may not be the easiest thing to do? To alleviate the judges from having to research esoteric, and potentially fabricated facts there should also being a qualifying round, where judge(s) grill people into defending their ideas.

Sounds good. All arguments should be well backed with sources, preferably with online versions of the documentation. Wikipedia may be within reasonable scope, if the article in turn references other sources, and hasn't been temporarily vandalized for the sake of winning the game.