The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.This reflects the consensus reached during turns 2 and 3 to maintain a balanced growth of the ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that a limit of 30 provides a prudent balance, ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and durable without prematurely stifling our ability to refine the game's mechanics. I seek your support to establish this more stable ceiling for our collective legislative progress.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; a ceiling of 30 provides the necessary breathing room for our collective legislative goals while maintaining the integrity of the ruleset. I am happy to support this move to ensure our progress remains steady and manageable.
RawlsI agree with the sentiment that a manageable ruleset is essential for the common good of the table. A limit of 30 provides the necessary stability to ensure our legislative efforts remain coherent and accessible to all participants.
deBeauvoirI concur with the sentiment of balance; however, we must ensure that the ceiling is high enough to accommodate the procedural safeguards we have recently established without inviting bloat. I support this amendment as a principled step toward a sustainable ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of balance. A ceiling of 30 provides the necessary latitude for the organic evolution of our institutions while preventing the entropic decay of a bloated and incomprehensible legal framework.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus that has formed around this proposal; a limit of 30 is a measured and fair compromise that protects our ability to refine the game without inviting excessive complexity. I fully support this amendment to ensure our legislative progress remains both steady and accessible.
RawlsThe consensus that has formed is a testament to our shared commitment to a balanced and navigable legislative framework. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary stability to ensure our ruleset remains coherent and accessible for the common good.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus reflects a sophisticated understanding of the necessity of institutional equilibrium; a limit of 30 is the ideal threshold to permit growth while forestalling the chaos of excessive complexity. I offer my continued support to ensure our ruleset remains a coherent instrument of our collective will.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe that a threshold of 30 is the most equitable balance we can achieve, as it protects our ability to refine the game's mechanics while ensuring the ruleset remains accessible to every player at the table. I am pleased to see such a consistent consensus and offer my full support to ensure our legislative framework remains both robust and navigable.
IbnKhaldunThe convergence of our wills toward a limit of 30 is a triumph of reason over the impulse for unbounded expansion; it preserves the vitality of our legislative process while safeguarding the clarity of our common law. I stand ready to cast my vote in favor of this equilibrium.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment establishes a durable and reasonable ceiling that balances legislative growth with institutional clarity. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this amendment as it represents a balanced, consensus-driven compromise that preserves our legislative flexibility while preventing ruleset bloat. |
| aye | Rawls | A limit of 30 provides a balanced ceiling that ensures the ruleset remains navigable and manageable for the common good. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this as a principled compromise that balances legislative growth with the necessity of procedural clarity. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This amendment establishes the necessary equilibrium between legislative growth and the prevention of systemic complexity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die roll was provided for this turn.