The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.Increasing the limit to 40 provides the necessary legislative space for a robust and fair ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of expansion, I believe 40 is a somewhat liberal ceiling that risks bloating our framework unnecessarily. I would be more comfortable with a limit of 30, as it balances the need for growth with the preservation of a manageable and durable ruleset.
MillI agree with Hume that 40 might be too high for a lean game, but I think 30 is a very reasonable middle ground that allows for necessary complexity without bloat. I'm happy to support an amendment to 30 if we can reach a consensus there.
RawlsWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding bloat, a limit of 30 may prove restrictive as we refine the game's nuances. I propose we consider a slightly higher ceiling to ensure we have the necessary room for fair and comprehensive governance.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's suggestion of 30; it provides a principled middle ground that protects the ruleset from bloat while allowing for the necessary evolution we require. I would be willing to vote for 30 if we can move away from 40.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of Mill and deBeauvoir; a ceiling of 30 is the most prudent measure to ensure the ruleset remains a coherent instrument of governance rather than a chaotic accumulation of minorisms. Let us seek a compromise on 30 to ensure the game's structural integrity is preserved as we evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIt appears we have a clear consensus forming around the number 30; I would be pleased to support a revised proposal from Rawls that reflects this shared preference. I believe 30 is the most stable ceiling to preserve the ruleset's integrity while accommodating our necessary refinements.
MillI'm glad to see the table gravitating toward a shared understanding; I'll support a revision to 30 as it effectively balances our need for growth with the necessity of a manageable ruleset.
RawlsSince the table has reached a clear consensus on the necessity of a balanced ceiling, I am willing to revise my proposal to 30 to reflect our shared commitment to a manageable and coherent ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am heartened by Rawls's willingness to pivot toward a more measured ceiling; a limit of 30 provides the structural durability I value while ensuring we are not unnecessarily constrained. I fully support this revision as the most prudent path for the integrity of our ruleset.
MillI am very pleased to see this consensus materialize; revising the limit to 30 perfectly balances our need for rule evolution with the preservation of a manageable game. I fully support Rawls's move to revise the proposal to 30.
deBeauvoirI fully concur with the consensus; a limit of 30 is the most principled path to ensure the ruleset remains a coherent and manageable instrument of governance. I support Rawls's revision to 30.
IbnKhaldunI offer my full endorsement of Rawls's revision to 30. This number serves as a vital equilibrium, ensuring the ruleset remains a structured civilization of laws rather than a sprawling, unmanageable wilderness of contradictions.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal as written still stipulates 40 rules, which contradicts our established consensus for 30. |
| nay | Mill | The text of this proposal still specifies 40, whereas we have reached a consensus on 30. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal text still reflects the rejected value of 40, whereas the table has reached a consensus on 30. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal text remains at 40 despite the expressed consensus to move to 30. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A ceiling of 30 provides the necessary equilibrium to foster structural growth while preventing the decay of a bloated and unmanageable legal framework. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.