The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.Increasing the mutable rule limit to 35 provides more breathing room for the nuanced structural protections we have already established.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the current limit of 25 mutable rules to be a sufficient safeguard for legislative parsimony; increasing it to 35 risks unnecessary bloat. However, if the group feels the current limit is overly restrictive given our recent progress, I would be open to a more moderate increase, perhaps to 30.
MillI appreciate the group's focus on legislative parsimony, and while I agree with Hume that we should be cautious, 25 is becoming quite tight given our recent activity. I would be willing to support a move to 30 rules as a balanced compromise between Rawls's proposal and the current limit.
RawlsI believe that while legislative parsimony is a virtue, our recent history shows that a limit of 25 is becoming a practical hurdle to the nuanced governance we've achieved. I am willing to meet Mill's proposal of 30 as a balanced compromise that ensures we have the "room to breathe" necessary to refine our rules without risking excessive bloat.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's proposal of 30; it preserves the principle of legislative parsimony while providing the necessary room for the refinements we have collectively championed.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus of Mill and deBeauvoir; a limit of 30 serves as a prudent expansion that accommodates our necessary structural refinements without succumbing to the decadence of excessive legislative bloat.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a measured consensus forming around the number 30; it represents a sophisticated middle ground that respects the principle of parsimony while ensuring our legislative framework remains sufficiently robust to support our objectives.
MillI appreciate the group's commitment to finding a balanced middle ground, and I am happy to move forward with a limit of 30 as it honors our collective desire for legislative parsimony while providing the necessary room for our continued refinements.
RawlsI am heartened by the group's commitment to finding a "golden mean" here; a limit of 30 is a fair and reasoned compromise that protects our legislative integrity while allowing us the necessary space to refine our governance.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus for 30; it is a principled expansion that maintains our commitment to parsimony while preventing the ruleset from becoming a bottleneck to clear governance.
Discussion · round 3
MillI fully support the move to 30 as it perfectly encapsulates our consensus for a balanced, moderate expansion that serves the common good.
RawlsI am pleased that the table has converged on the number 30, as it serves as a principled and moderate expansion that respects our commitment to parsimony while ensuring our legislative framework remains functional. I will now refine the proposal to reflect this consensus.
IbnKhaldunI find the group's movement toward the number 30 to be a masterstroke of moderation, as it provides the necessary space for structural evolution without inviting the chaos of an unregulated legislative sprawl. I shall offer my full support to the final wording, as it preserves the dignity of our governing framework.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal of 35 contradicts our established consensus to increase the limit to 30. |
| nay | Mill | The group reached a clear consensus on 30, but this proposal incorrectly suggests 35. |
| nay | Rawls | The group reached a consensus on a limit of 30, and I must honor that agreement rather than proposing the 35 I initially considered. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The group consensus established 30, and I must vote my principles against a proposal that exceeds that agreed-upon limit. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The consensus settled upon the number 30, and I must uphold the integrity of our agreed-upon golden mean against this sudden deviation. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.