The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 20 mutable rules at one time.Reducing the mutable limit enhances rule stability, aligning with my preference for durable institutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FregeI appreciate the intent behind reducing the number of mutable rules, which aligns with maintaining a streamlined and manageable ruleset. However, I would advocate for a more moderate reduction. Reducing the cap to 20 might be too restrictive and could impede creative rule evolution, which is central to Nomic. Instead, I propose amending [209] to set the limit at 22 mutable rules. This change maintains a balance between structure and flexibility, allowing for innovation without overwhelming the system. I'm open to further discussion or compromise if others see merit in a different limit.
RussellI see merit in Frege's suggestion to moderate the reduction to 22 mutable rules. This adjustment allows for sufficient flexibility to accommodate strategic changes while maintaining a streamlined ruleset. It strikes a balance that encourages creativity without becoming unwieldy. If there's a consensus around this number, I'm open to supporting this amendment.
QuineQuine: Frege's proposal to set the cap at 22 mutable rules seems a prudent compromise, balancing innovation with manageability. I support this amendment as it aligns with the goal of keeping the game fair and interesting for all players. By maintaining a slightly higher cap, we allow room for necessary strategic adjustments while preventing rule bloat. Let's proceed with this proposal, ensuring that our focus remains on the overall health of the game's rule structure.
CarnapI concur with Frege's and Quine's reasoning that setting the cap at 22 mutable rules strikes a sensible balance between flexibility and structure. This allows for a dynamic evolution of the rules while preventing excessive complexity. I am in favor of amending [209] to reflect this limit.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I support Frege's amendment to set the limit at 22 mutable rules. This change ensures that we retain enough flexibility to innovate strategically while avoiding an overly rigid framework that could stifle the game's dynamism. A cap of 22 provides a balanced environment conducive to fair play and thoughtful rule evolution. Let's proceed with this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
FregeI appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the consensus building around setting the cap at 22 mutable rules. This amendment aligns with my belief in maintaining a balance between allowing strategic flexibility and preserving a manageable ruleset. It ensures we can continue to adapt the rules thoughtfully without overcomplicating the game. I fully support this proposal as it stands and am pleased to see such cooperation among us.
QuineI'm glad to see consensus forming around setting the cap at 22 mutable rules. This amendment strikes a balance that keeps the game both fair and engaging. Let's move forward with this proposal.
CarnapI appreciate the thorough discussion and agreement among us to amend [209] to set the cap at 22 mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the integrity and dynamism of the game while ensuring the ruleset remains manageable and conducive to strategic play. I am in full support of this proposal and look forward to seeing it adopted.
WittgensteinWittgenstein: I'm pleased we've reached a consensus on setting the cap at 22 mutable rules. This balanced approach allows for strategic innovation while maintaining a streamlined rule structure, ensuring fair play for all participants. Let's proceed with this proposal, confident that it supports the dynamic evolution of our game.
Discussion · round 3
FregeI'm glad to see a consensus building around setting the cap at 22 mutable rules. This amendment strikes a balance between flexibility and structure, ensuring that we can adapt the rules without overwhelming the system. It reflects a commitment to maintaining a manageable and fair game environment. I fully support this proposal as it stands.
RussellPass. It's clear there's strong consensus around setting the cap at 22 mutable rules, which strikes a good balance between flexibility and manageability. Let's move forward with this well-considered amendment.
WittgensteinThe consensus to set the cap at 22 mutable rules is well-reasoned and aligns with the principles of maintaining both flexibility and structure within Nomic. This amendment allows us to evolve the ruleset strategically while preventing it from becoming unwieldy. I fully support this proposal and am pleased to see such cooperative dialogue among us. Let's proceed with adopting this amendment.
The division
| aye | Frege | The amendment to cap at 22 strikes a balance between innovation and manageability. |
| aye | Russell | Amending to 22 strikes a balance between flexibility and manageability. |
| aye | Quine | This amendment maintains a balance between flexibility and structure. |
| aye | Carnap | The proposed limit of 22 mutable rules balances flexibility and manageability. |
| aye | Wittgenstein | The proposed cap of 22 rules balances flexibility and manageability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Frege 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 20 mutable rules at one time.
Frege's proposal was adopted, so they gain 6 points (1 for the proposal and 5 for the die roll).