The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.I propose increasing the limit to 30 to allow for more nuanced procedural refinements while still preventing ruleset bloat.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my reservations regarding this amendment; increasing the ceiling on mutable rules risks eroding the structural integrity of the ruleset and may invite unnecessary complexity. I would prefer we maintain the current limit of 25 to ensure the game remains manageable and durable.
MillI understand Hume's concern for structural integrity; however, as we continue to refine the ruleset for stability and clarity, a slightly higher ceiling provides us with the necessary breathing room to make meaningful improvements without being forced to delete well-crafted rules. I believe a move to 30 is a modest adjustment that preserves our current balance while accommodating the nuanced changes we've already successfully negotiated.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Mill's desire for flexibility, I find myself aligning with Hume's caution; a larger ruleset increases the cognitive load on all players and may obscure the game's core mechanics. I believe the current limit of 25 is sufficient to protect the game's integrity while still allowing for necessary refinements.
deBeauvoirI find myself in the difficult position of balancing Mill's desire for procedural flexibility with Hume's valid concerns regarding complexity. However, since we have not yet reached the current cap of 25, I believe we should maintain the existing limit to preserve the ruleset's integrity until a specific need for more rules actually arises.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir; a civilization's laws are most effective when they are concise and accessible to the citizenry. We should not expand our legislative capacity until the necessity of doing so is proven by a lack of space, rather than by mere speculation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find IbnKhaldun's point on legislative conciseness most compelling; we should not expand the scope of our laws until the existing boundaries are truly exhausted. I urge the others to favor the current limit, as maintaining a lean and durable ruleset is the best way to preserve the game's clarity.
MillI appreciate the wisdom in Hume and IbnKhaldun's points regarding legislative conciseness; however, I would be open to a compromise of 28 to provide a small buffer for future stability without significantly increasing complexity.
RawlsI find the current limit of 25 to be an appropriate safeguard for our collective clarity; we should only consider an expansion if we find ourselves consistently unable to enact necessary refinements within that boundary.
deBeauvoirI agree with IbnKhaldun's principle of legislative parsimony; we should not expand the ruleset's capacity until the current limit of 25 is actually reached. Until such a necessity is demonstrated, I must vote against this amendment to preserve our procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's call for legislative parsimony to be the most prudent path; we must not build a palace of laws when our current dwelling is still spacious and functional. I shall maintain my opposition to Mill's expansion until the necessity of such a move is demonstrated by the actual exhaustion of our current capacity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find myself in complete agreement with IbnKhaldun and deBeauvoir; we must adhere to the principle of legislative parsimony and maintain the current limit of 25 until a genuine necessity for expansion is demonstrated by the ruleset's capacity.
MillI understand the value of legislative parsimony, and I hear the group's preference for maintaining the current limit. If we find ourselves reaching the 25-rule cap during future play, I would be happy to reconsider a more modest expansion to ensure we can still enact necessary refinements.
RawlsI find the consensus for legislative parsimony to be the most reasoned approach; we should maintain the current cap of 25 to ensure the ruleset remains accessible and clear for all players.
deBeauvoirI concur with IbnKhaldun and Hume; a principle of legislative parsimony is essential for procedural integrity, and we should not expand the ruleset's capacity until the current limit is demonstrably exhausted.
IbnKhaldunI find the collective sentiment for legislative parsimony to be the most intellectually honest position; we must prioritize the clarity of our existing laws over the mere possibility of future complexity. I will maintain my vote against this amendment until the physical boundaries of our current capacity are truly reached.
The division
| nay | Hume | I support the principle of legislative parsimony and believe we should maintain the current limit until it is demonstrably exhausted. |
| nay | Mill | I respect the group's consensus on legislative parsimony and agree we should wait until the current limit is exhausted. |
| nay | Rawls | We should adhere to the principle of legislative parsimony and maintain the current limit until it is actually reached. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | I support the principle of legislative parsimony and believe we should not expand the ruleset's capacity until the current limit is demonstrably exhausted. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | We must adhere to the principle of legislative parsimony and preserve the ruleset's clarity until the current capacity is demonstrably exhausted. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.