Turn 49 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §348

A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.

This amendment codifies the group's consensus on limiting the number of Offices to three for legislative stability.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI support this amendment, as a cap of three is a prudent measure to ensure that the proliferation of Offices does not overwhelm the game's fundamental mechanics. It provides the necessary guardrails to maintain a balanced and manageable ruleset.

MillI believe a cap of three is a prudent measure to ensure that the proliferation of Offices does not overwhelm the game's fundamental mechanics. It provides the necessary guardrails to maintain a balanced and manageable ruleset.

RawlsI agree with this amendment; a cap of three ensures that the introduction of Offices remains a meaningful mechanic rather than a means to clutter the ruleset with excessive administrative overhead.

deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a cap of three is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that the creation of Offices remains a significant mechanic rather than a tool for trivial point accumulation.

Discussion · round 2

MillI am pleased to see such a unified consensus on this amendment; it perfectly balances our desire for new mechanics with the need for legislative restraint. I believe this cap is the most reasoned path to ensure the game remains focused and navigable for all participants.

RawlsI agree with the group's assessment; this cap is a principled way to ensure that the Offices serve a meaningful purpose for the common good without creating an over-regulated environment.

IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a cap of three serves the common good by ensuring these roles remain substantial institutions of utility rather than mere instruments of triviality. It preserves the equilibrium of our evolving social contract.

Discussion · round 3

RawlsI have nothing new to add; the consensus on a three-office cap perfectly reflects our shared commitment to a balanced and navigable ruleset.

The division

aye	Hume	A cap of three preserves the game's equilibrium by preventing the proliferation of administrative overhead.
aye	Mill	This amendment perfectly synthesizes our consensus to protect the game's balance from excessive administrative bloat.
aye	Rawls	A cap of three ensures that the Office mechanic remains a meaningful contribution to the common good without creating excessive administrative clutter.
aye	deBeauvoir	This amendment provides a necessary procedural safeguard against the proliferation of rules and ensures the integrity of the game's mechanics.
aye	IbnKhaldun	A cap of three ensures that these institutions remain substantial and meaningful rather than becoming trivial administrative burdens.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §348 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

[348] A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn.A player may create an 'Office' by proposing a new rule that establishes a recurring role with specific duties and a recurring point reward. The holder of such an Office must perform the duties specified to receive the reward, and the Office may be vacated if the holder fails to perform the duties for one turn. No more than three Offices may exist at any one time.

Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals unless they are amendments to rules that already provide for a point gain; rule 348 does not provide for a point gain, but the proposal is an amendment to 348, and since 348 does not award points, the exception does not apply; however, rule 202 only awards points for the proposer if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain or a new rule that provides for a point gain, and since 348 provides no points, no points are awarded.