The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which must be an enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation. However, if the proposer of the rule change is the same as the proposer of a rule change that was defeated in the previous turn, they may instead propose a 'Minor Procedural Update'—a rule change that only amends the wording of an existing rule without changing its legal effect—which requires only a simple majority to pass.This amendment provides a balanced path for refining our governance without the friction of constant unanimous consensus on minor textual clarifications.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the clarity this proposal provides regarding the definition of a 'Minor Procedural Update', but I would prefer to ensure that such a mechanism does not inadvertently provide a loophole for substantive changes to be rebranded as mere wording adjustments.
MillI agree with Hume's caution; I suggest we add a clarifying clause that "Minor Procedural Updates" cannot alter any substantive requirements, rights, or restrictions within a rule.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's suggestion and propose we incorporate it; adding "without altering any substantive requirements, rights, or restrictions" ensures that our pursuit of efficiency does not undermine the legal integrity of our governance.
deBeauvoirI support the inclusion of Mill's clarifying clause as it aligns with my principled commitment to procedural integrity. It ensures that "minor" updates remain strictly cosmetic and do not serve as a vehicle for covert substantive shifts.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill’s refinement; we must ensure that "minor" remains a descriptor of form, not a veil for the subversion of substance. This safeguard preserves the stability of our institutional architecture while granting the necessary flexibility for linguistic precision.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI support the inclusion of Mill's clarifying clause; it provides the necessary guardrails to ensure that linguistic precision never serves as a pretext for substantive subversion.
MillI support this refined version as it perfectly balances the need for linguistic clarity with the preservation of our legislative integrity. By ensuring these updates remain strictly cosmetic, we uphold the stability of our framework while allowing for necessary procedural refinement.
RawlsI believe the collective consensus has reached a sophisticated balance; by incorporating Mill's clarifying clause, we protect our foundational principles while still achieving the procedural efficiency we all desire. I am ready to move the proposal forward with this refinement.
deBeauvoirI support the inclusion of Mill's clarifying clause as it ensures that the mechanism for efficiency does not become a tool for substantive manipulation. By strictly limiting "Minor Procedural Updates" to cosmetic changes, we preserve the integrity of our democratic process.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the collective refinement; by ensuring these updates are strictly cosmetic, we uphold the *asabiyyah* of our legislative order while permitting the necessary fluidity of expression.
Discussion · round 3
MillI support the inclusion of the clarifying clause as it provides the necessary guardrails to ensure that linguistic precision remains a tool for clarity rather than a means for substantive subversion.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects our shared commitment to procedural integrity and the preservation of our legislative substance.
The division
| aye | Hume | The inclusion of the clarifying clause ensures that minor updates remain cosmetic and preserve our institutional integrity. |
| aye | Mill | This refinement perfectly balances our need for legislative efficiency with the procedural integrity we have collectively agreed upon. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides a fair mechanism for efficiency while preserving the substantive integrity of our rules. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment provides necessary procedural efficiency while preserving the integrity of the ruleset by restricting 'minor' changes to cosmetic wording. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement preserves the structural integrity of our laws while allowing for the necessary linguistic evolution of our shared governance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 102 · Proposal §402 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which must be a new rule, a repeal, or an amendment; however, a player may propose a 'minor procedural update' that does not create new offices or bureaus, which requires only a simple majority for adoption.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which must be an enactment, repeal, amendment, or transmutation. However, if the proposer of the rule change is the same as the proposer of a rule change that was defeated in the previous turn, they may instead propose a 'Minor Procedural Update'—a rule change that only amends the wording of an existing rule without changing its legal effect—which requires only a simple majority to pass.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, and no rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points for such an outcome.