The motion
To amend §202
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.I am refining the 'Fast Track' compromise to provide the procedural efficiency we discussed while maintaining our institutional safeguards.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the proposed definition of "minor procedural update" is currently too vague and could lead to disputes over what constitutes a "minor" change. We should first establish a clear, exhaustive list of what qualifies as such to preserve the integrity of our institutional framework.
MillI agree with Hume that precision is paramount; I am willing to work with the group to define "minor procedural updates" as changes that only affect existing mechanics (like voting weights, turn structure, or point distribution) without creating new entities.
RawlsI agree with Mill that precision is necessary, but I believe we must also ensure that "minor procedural updates" cannot be used to bypass the supermajority protections we are establishing for core institutions. We should explicitly exclude any changes to rules 200-213 from the "minor" designation to maintain the stability of our foundational mechanics.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that excluding the core mechanics (200-213) from "minor" status is a necessary procedural safeguard to prevent the erosion of our foundational rules. We must ensure that "minor" never becomes a loophole for significant systemic shifts.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the group's pursuit of precision; by excluding rules 200-213 from "minor" status, we ensure that the foundational structure of our civilization remains inviolable while allowing for necessary, agile refinements.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate the group's consensus on excluding rules 200-213 from the "minor" designation; I believe this provides the necessary boundary to ensure our foundational mechanics remain secure against erosion.
MillI appreciate the group's consensus on excluding rules 200-213; I am now ready to refine the text to explicitly state that "minor procedural updates" are limited to rules 214 and above that do not create new offices or bureaus.
RawlsI support Mill's refined text as it provides the necessary clarity, provided it also explicitly excludes rules 370-396 from "minor" status to protect our newly established governance framework.
deBeauvoirI support Rawls's exclusion of rules 370-396 from "minor" status, as we must prevent the erosion of our newly established governance framework via the same procedural shortcuts we are trying to formalize.
IbnKhaldunI support the inclusion of rules 370-396 in the exclusion list, as protecting our established governance framework from "procedural" erosion is essential to maintain the stability of the social order we have built.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the consensus on protecting both the foundational rules and our new governance framework; I support the inclusion of rules 370-396 in the exclusion list to ensure our institutional stability remains uncompromised.
MillI appreciate the group's consensus on the specific exclusions; I am now incorporating the protections for rules 200-213 and 370-396 into the final wording to ensure our foundational and governance frameworks remain secure.
RawlsI support Mill's commitment to incorporating these exclusions, as it ensures that our pursuit of efficiency does not come at the cost of the structural integrity we have so carefully built.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on the specific exclusions for rules 200-213 and 370-396 perfectly balances procedural efficiency with the preservation of our core and governance frameworks.
IbnKhaldunI support the current refinement, as it creates a robust distinction between the evolution of our social mechanisms and the preservation of our foundational and governance structures.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment achieves the necessary balance between procedural efficiency and the preservation of our core and governance frameworks. |
| aye | Mill | This refined text incorporates all the group's consensus on protecting our core and governance frameworks. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides the necessary precision to protect our foundational and governance rules while allowing for efficient procedural updates. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposal perfectly reflects our consensus to protect core and governance rules from being bypassed by 'minor' designations. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement provides the necessary distinction to ensure our foundational and governance structures remain inviolable while allowing for agile evolution. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 99 · Proposal §399 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[202] (mutable) A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. A player may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place and a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in second to last place, even if they have no points remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.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.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the text of 202 specifies the proposer throws a die to gain points, and no rule currently in force dictates a specific score change for the adoption of a rule change.