The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.I support the table's consensus from Turn 74 to create a stable ceiling for our growing institutional framework.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find the reduction to 35 rules to be a prudent measure to maintain clarity, and I am prepared to support this amendment to ensure our burgeoning institutional framework remains manageable.
MillI agree with Hume; maintaining a manageable ruleset is essential for clarity as we continue to build these significant institutions. I believe 35 is a fair and sustainable limit that protects our progress without being overly restrictive.
RawlsI agree with the previous speakers; a limit of 35 rules provides a sufficient "ceiling" to prevent the ruleset from becoming overly bloated while still accommodating the vital institutional framework we have collectively established.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides a necessary procedural guardrail against legislative bloat, ensuring that our institutional framework remains precise and navigable.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; as a reformer, I recognize that a state's laws must be accessible to be effective, and a limit of 35 ensures our new institutions remain coherent rather than labyrinthine.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the prevailing consensus on a 35-rule limit to be a wise exercise in institutional maintenance, as it ensures our legislative output remains navigable and coherent. I support this amendment to safeguard the clarity of our shared governance.
MillI appreciate the table's unified stance on this; it is a vital step to ensure our governance remains a clear tool for the players rather than an impenetrable thicket of bureaucracy. I am pleased to see such a strong consensus on a limit that balances our ambition with the necessity of clarity.
RawlsI support this amendment as it reinforces our commitment to a balanced and navigable governance structure, ensuring that our new institutions remain practical tools for the players.
deBeauvoirI have no objections; as a proceduralist, I favor a clear, manageable ruleset that maintains its own integrity. I support this amendment as it establishes a necessary boundary against the accumulation of redundant regulations.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI have nothing new to add, as the unanimous consensus reflects a shared commitment to institutional clarity and the prevention of legislative bloat. I support this amendment to ensure our ruleset remains a coherent instrument of governance.
MillI appreciate the table's commitment to this refinement; by establishing a 35-rule limit, we ensure our governance remains a functional framework rather than a labyrinthine burden. I am proud to see such a unified approach to maintaining the integrity of our legislative progress.
The division
| aye | Hume | A limit of 35 mutable rules is a prudent measure to preserve the clarity and navigability of our shared institutional framework. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this amendment as it reflects our unanimous consensus on maintaining a manageable and clear ruleset. |
| aye | Rawls | A 35-rule limit is a fair compromise that ensures our governance remains navigable and accessible to all players. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this amendment as a necessary procedural guardrail against legislative bloat. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A state's laws must be accessible to remain effective, and this limit prevents the ruleset from becoming a labyrinthine burden. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 82 · Proposal §382 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 35 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points for the adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.