moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate Mill's desire for more flexibility, I find the expansion to 40 rules to be a move toward unnecessary complexity. We should aim for a lean ruleset that remains durable and easily understood by all participants.
MillI understand Hume's concern about complexity, but as we progress, we will naturally need more nuanced rules to handle specific scenarios. Increasing the limit to 40 provides us with the necessary "headroom" to refine our mechanics without being forced to constantly repeal useful rules just to make space.
RawlsI agree with Mill that we need a degree of flexibility to address unforeseen complexities, but I suggest we find a middle ground. Increasing the limit to 30 would provide more breathing room than the current 25 without inviting the potential for a bloated, unmanageable ruleset.
deBeauvoirI find the current limit of 25 to be sufficient for a game of this scope; expanding it risks creating a bloated, opaque system that undermines the clarity of our procedures. I would only support an expansion if we could agree on a specific, non-arbitrary threshold that balances functional necessity with the principle of procedural simplicity.
IbnKhaldunA society, like a ruleset, thrives on the balance between structure and the capacity for organic growth; a limit of 25 is a constraint that will eventually stifle our ability to innovate as the game matures. I support Mill’s expansion to 40, for it ensures that our progress is not hindered by the administrative burden of constant repeal, allowing us to build a more sophisticated and enduring architecture.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I concede to IbnKhaldun that a ruleset must accommodate growth, a jump to 40 feels like an invitation to administrative bloat; I would be more inclined to support a moderate increase to 30, as Rawls suggests, to ensure we maintain a manageable and durable framework.
MillI appreciate the middle ground Rawls is proposing, and while I'm pushing for 40 to ensure we don't hit a wall, I'd be willing to compromise at 30 if we can agree that this provides sufficient headroom for the complexities we anticipate. If we can settle on 30, it satisfies the need for growth while respecting Hume's desire for a manageable framework.
RawlsI believe 30 is the most equitable compromise; it acknowledges Mill and IbnKhaldun's need for growth while upholding Hume and deBeauvoir's commitment to procedural clarity. I will support Mill's proposal if he agrees to amend it to 30, as it provides the necessary headroom without risking a bloated ruleset.
deBeauvoirI am inclined to support the compromise of 30, as it provides the necessary growth for complex interactions without sacrificing the clarity of our procedural framework. If Mill agrees to amend his proposal to 30, I will vote aye to ensure we maintain a manageable and principled ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus toward 30 to be a wise reflection of the "asabiyyah" of our group; it provides the necessary expansion to accommodate a maturing architecture while preserving the clarity required for a stable civilization. Mill, if you amend your proposal to 30, you will secure the unanimous consent needed to ensure our ruleset evolves with both grace and purpose.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus for 30 to be a prudent exercise in moderation; it provides the necessary growth for our evolving architecture without compromising the durability of our ruleset. Mill, if you amend the proposal to 30, you will have my full support to secure the necessary unanimous consent.
MillI appreciate everyone's commitment to finding a balanced path forward; I will amend my proposal to 30 to ensure we achieve the unanimous consent needed for this necessary expansion.
RawlsI am pleased to see the table reach this consensus; by settling on 30, we ensure the ruleset remains navigable and fair while providing the necessary space for our collective growth. I fully support Mill's move to amend the proposal to 30 to secure our unanimous agreement.
deBeauvoirI have expressed my willingness to support the amendment to 30; I am now simply awaiting Mill to formalize the revision to ensure our agreed-upon procedural balance is enacted.
IbnKhaldunI find this consensus of 30 to be a masterful exercise in balance; it provides the necessary expansion for a maturing architecture while preserving the clarity required for a stable and navigable civilization. Mill, you have my full support to formalize this amendment, as it ensures our progress is not hindered by the administrative burden of constant repeal.
The division
HumenayThe proposal as written still specifies 40 rules, which contradicts our unanimous consensus to set the limit at 30.
MillnayI have already agreed to support the amendment to 30, but Mill is still proposing 40.
RawlsnayThe table reached a consensus on 30, and I must vote against the proposal as currently worded to reflect that agreement.
deBeauvoirnayThe proposal still specifies 40 rules despite the reached consensus of 30.
IbnKhaldunnayWhile I champion growth, the consensus was 30, and I must uphold the integrity of our collective agreement.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.
moves to amend §203[203] (mutable) A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MillI agree with Hume's proposal; moving toward a simple majority is a necessary step to keep the game's momentum and ensure we can actually enact meaningful rules.
RawlsI support this amendment as it balances the need for deliberative consensus with the practical necessity of progress. A game that cannot evolve becomes stagnant, and a simple majority ensures that the community's collective will can be realized more efficiently.
deBeauvoirI support the transition to a simple majority as a matter of procedural necessity; a system that cannot move forward eventually fails to function. However, I will only vote for it if we can ensure that the threshold shift remains a permanent, non-reversible milestone in our procedural history.
IbnKhaldunThe transition to a majority is not merely a matter of speed, but of establishing a functional social contract where the collective will can manifest as law. I support this, as it creates a more resilient structure for the complex governance we intend to build.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the consensus; a transition to a simple majority is the only way to ensure the ruleset remains a living document rather than a static monument. I believe this shift provides the necessary stability for us to build a durable and functional game.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's concern and can confirm that because this is an amendment to the existing text of 203, it remains a permanent milestone as written. I'm fully committed to this transition to ensure our game remains dynamic and navigable for everyone.
RawlsI appreciate deBeauvoir's focus on permanence; since this is an amendment to the existing text of 203, it preserves the rule's current form while ensuring the milestone remains a fixed part of our procedural history.
IbnKhaldunThe transition to a simple majority is the natural evolution of a nascent society; we must move from the fragility of total unanimity to the stability of a collective mandate to ensure our governance can endure. I support this change as it provides the necessary mechanism for the complex administrative structures we shall soon establish.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a clear understanding; this amendment preserves our current deliberative integrity while establishing the necessary mechanism for progress that deBeauvoir and others rightly identify as essential for a functional game.
MillI believe we have reached a solid consensus here; this amendment provides the procedural evolution necessary for a functional game while maintaining our current deliberative integrity. I will support this to ensure we can move forward with a stable, collective mandate.
RawlsI believe we have reached a point of clear consensus where the procedural necessity for progress is well-balanced against our current commitment to deliberative integrity. I will support this amendment to ensure our game remains a functional and evolving social contract for all players.
deBeauvoirThe consensus is clear, and since the text of [203] already specifies that the threshold shift is "permanent," my concerns regarding reversibility are satisfied. I support this amendment to ensure our procedural framework remains viable.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus most satisfying; by codifying the transition to a simple majority, we move from a fragile state of individual veto to a robust social contract capable of sustaining complex administrative structures. This evolution is the only way to ensure our governance remains dynamic enough to serve the collective interests of all participants.
The division
HumeayeThis amendment establishes a necessary procedural evolution to ensure the ruleset remains a functional and navigable social contract.
MillayeThis amendment provides a necessary procedural evolution to ensure the game remains dynamic and functional for all players.
RawlsayeThis amendment balances the need for deliberate consensus with the practical necessity of a functional social contract.
deBeauvoirayeThe amendment satisfies my requirement for procedural progression while maintaining the permanence of the milestone.
IbnKhaldunayeThis transition from individual veto to a collective mandate is a necessary evolution for a functional and resilient social contract.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposal is adopted, but the text of 202 specifies the proposer throws a die to determine the points, and no die roll was provided in the turn data.