The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.This maintains the status quo of legislative parsimony as preferred by the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the current limit of 25 to be a prudent safeguard for legislative parsimony, but I am open to a modest expansion if the table feels the current capacity constrains our ability to achieve necessary structural clarity.
MillI agree with Hume that we should weigh the value of legislative parsimony against our actual needs; if we find ourselves hitting the cap frequently, a modest increase to 30 would provide breathing room without inviting bloat.
RawlsI find that a limit of 30 represents a reasonable "golden mean," providing enough space for the structural refinements we have championed while still upholding the principle of legislative parsimony. I would support this amendment as it balances our need for procedural clarity with the necessity of keeping the ruleset manageable.
deBeauvoirI concur with the group's consensus that 30 is the optimal "golden mean" for maintaining structural integrity while allowing for the refinements we have collectively prioritized. I will support the amendment to [209] to increase the limit to 30.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a threshold of 30 is a sophisticated expansion that preserves our commitment to parsimony while accommodating the necessary evolution of our legal architecture. It provides the requisite space for structural integrity without inviting the decadence of an unregulated ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with the group's consensus; the number 30 represents a measured and sophisticated compromise that respects our commitment to parsimony while providing the necessary space for our collective refinements.
MillI fully support deBeauvoir's proposal to increase the limit to 30, as it aligns perfectly with the "golden mean" we have collectively identified to ensure both legislative progress and parsimony.
RawlsI fully support this proposal as it aligns with our shared commitment to the "golden mean," providing the necessary space for structural clarity while maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.
Discussion · round 3
MillI have nothing new to add; the consensus on 30 as the "golden mean" is clear and I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal to codify it.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment achieves our established consensus for a balanced expansion that preserves legislative parsimony. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this amendment as it represents the 'golden mean' we have collectively agreed upon for legislative parsimony. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment achieves the 'golden mean' by providing sufficient space for structural clarity while preserving legislative parsimony. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The expansion to 30 mutable rules preserves legislative parsimony while providing the necessary room for our structural refinements. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A threshold of 30 provides the necessary expansion to accommodate our structural refinements while preserving the virtue of legislative parsimony. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, but no rules in the current ruleset award points for a unanimous adoption of an amendment to rule 209.