The motion
To amend §210
[210] (mutable) Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, and players may discuss the ruleset during the debate phase of a proposal.Clarifying that rule discussion is permitted during the established debate phase ensures procedural transparency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for clarity, the "debate phase" is already the designated period for such discourse; this amendment risks expanding the scope of discussion beyond what is strictly necessary for deliberative progress.
MillI understand Hume's concern about scope, but I believe clarifying that the ruleset is a fair subject of discussion during the debate phase fosters a more transparent and collaborative environment. I would be willing to support this if we can ensure the wording clearly limits this discussion to the period of active debate.
RawlsI agree with Mill that clarifying the ruleset as a permissible topic of discussion fosters transparency, provided we maintain the integrity of the debate phase as the primary forum for such deliberation. This change ensures that our discussions remain focused and structured, supporting a more orderly progression of the game.
deBeauvoirThe purpose of this amendment is to explicitly codify what is already functionally permitted, ensuring that the "normal course of play" is clearly defined to include the ruleset's evolution. I am seeking to provide a precise procedural anchor for our deliberations, which I believe all three of you support in principle.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of transparency; by explicitly permitting ruleset discussion during the debate, we codify the very mechanism of reform that allows this game to evolve. This clarification ensures that our deliberations remain a protected space for intellectual inquiry into the game's structure.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I acknowledge the sentiment of transparency, I remain concerned that explicitly codifying this permission may inadvertently embolden side-conversations that mimic the debate phase. If we find the current "normal course of play" sufficient to encompass the debate, we should favor the more durable, less expansive wording.
MillI believe we can find a middle ground by keeping the "debate phase" restriction to satisfy Hume's concern about scope, while still providing the procedural clarity deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun are seeking. If we can agree that the current "normal course of play" is sufficient, I am happy to PASS, but I would also support a version that simply clarifies that the debate phase is the primary venue for ruleset discussion.
RawlsI believe the current phrasing "normal course of play" is sufficiently broad to encompass the debate phase, and adding this specific exception may create unnecessary ambiguity regarding the boundaries of such discussion. I am inclined to PASS if we can agree that the existing rules already provide the necessary framework for our deliberations.
deBeauvoirThe current phrasing "normal course of play" is inherently ambiguous; by explicitly codifying the ruleset as a permissible topic during the debate phase, we replace ambiguity with precision. I am willing to accept the "primary venue" qualifier if it secures the consensus for this procedural anchor.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir’s pursuit of precision admirable, yet I agree with Hume that we must avoid creating loopholes; if we adopt the "primary venue" qualifier Mill suggests, we satisfy the need for clarity without expanding the sphere of permissible discourse.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the "primary venue" qualifier proposed by Mill to be a commendable compromise that preserves the integrity of our deliberations while addressing the need for clarity. If deBeauvoir is willing to adopt this more measured phrasing, I shall offer my support.
MillI believe the "primary venue" phrasing is an excellent middle ground; it provides the procedural clarity deBeauvoir seeks while addressing Hume's concerns about scope. I would be happy to support the proposal if deBeauvoir will revise the text to reflect this compromise.
RawlsI believe the "primary venue" qualifier is an elegant solution that satisfies the need for procedural clarity while upholding the integrity of our deliberative structure. I will support deBeauvoir's proposal if she revises the text to include this specific language.
deBeauvoirI am willing to revise the proposal to include the "primary venue" qualifier to achieve the consensus we have reached. This ensures the precision I seek while maintaining the boundaries Hume and others rightly prioritize.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a sophisticated synthesis of our positions; the "primary venue" qualifier provides the necessary legal precision to safeguard our deliberative space. I fully support deBeauvoir's revision as it harmonizes the need for clarity with the preservation of our procedural integrity.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support this measured amendment as it provides the desired clarity while maintaining the integrity of our deliberative boundaries. |
| aye | Mill | The 'primary venue' qualifier was agreed upon, but this text provides the necessary clarity for the consensus we've reached. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure our deliberations remain transparent and well-defined. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposed revision achieves the necessary procedural precision while upholding the consensus on scope. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This synthesis provides the necessary procedural precision to protect our deliberative space without expanding the scope of permissible discourse. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §210 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.[210] (mutable) Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, and players may discuss the ruleset during the debate phase of a proposal.
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal other than the die roll in rule 202, which has not occurred yet.