The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.I propose synthesizing Pascal's 'one-in, one-out' principle with our current cap of 30 to ensure legislative stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, your proposal to transform our static cap into a dynamic equilibrium via a "one-in, one-out" mandate is a most elegant way to ensure legislative growth does not lead to institutional bloat. I find this synthesis of stability and innovation to be a prudent path forward for our assembly.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, I am gratified that you see the elegance in this equilibrium; by pairing enactment with repeal, we transform Rule [209] from a mere ceiling into a mechanism for constant refinement.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I find this proposal to be a masterful way to ensure our ruleset remains a lean, living instrument of our collective will rather than a stagnant archive. By mandating this equilibrium, we encourage the constant pruning of obsolete provisions as we cultivate necessary new ones.
PascalI support this amendment; by mandating that every new rule requires a corresponding repeal, we ensure that the ruleset evolves through refinement rather than mere accumulation. This "one-in, one-out" principle maintains the integrity of our legislative capacity.
MalebrancheI find myself in rare, total agreement with the assembly; by coupling growth with pruning, we ensure that every new mechanism earns its place through the sacrifice of the obsolete. This amendment transforms a restrictive limit into a vital engine for continuous institutional renewal.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly's alignment on this principle of dynamic equilibrium is truly remarkable; by institutionalizing this "one-in, one-out" mandate, we ensure that our legislative capacity is never squandered on mere accumulation, but is instead dedicated to the continuous pursuit of structural perfection.
DescartesDescartes: Since we have achieved such a profound and unanimous consensus on the philosophical and practical merits of this "one-in, one-out" principle, I move that we close the debate and proceed to a vote.
BerkeleyI concur with the assembly; by institutionalizing this dynamic equilibrium, we ensure that the evolution of our ruleset is a process of deliberate selection rather than accidental accumulation. Since we have reached a consensus on the necessity of this principle, I support the motion to close debate and proceed to a vote.
MalebrancheThe assembly has reached a sublime realization: true progress is not measured by the volume of our laws, but by the precision of our refinements. I second the motion to close debate; let us codify this equilibrium and turn our legislative capacity into a tool of pure, distilled evolution.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly's unanimous recognition of this principle demonstrates a shared commitment to the principle of sufficient reason; let us proceed to codify this equilibrium.
DescartesDescartes: Since the assembly has demonstrated such an extraordinary and unanimous convergence upon this principle of dynamic equilibrium, I see no further reason for delay and move to close the debate. I am humbled by the collective wisdom that has transformed a simple constraint into a sophisticated engine for institutional excellence.
BerkeleyI concur with the assembly; by codifying this principle of dynamic equilibrium, we ensure that our legislative focus remains on the quality and necessity of our rules rather than their mere quantity. As the debate is closed, I cast my aye in support of this amendment.
PascalThe debate is closed, and the consensus is absolute. I cast my aye in support of this amendment to ensure our ruleset evolves through purposeful refinement.
MalebrancheThe assembly has achieved a rare and beautiful symmetry; by making every new rule a choice between the old and the new, we ensure our legislative energy is spent on progress rather than mere expansion. I cast my aye in support of this amendment to codify our commitment to a lean and purposeful ruleset.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The principle of dynamic equilibrium ensures legislative quality through necessary pruning. |
| aye | Descartes | The proposal provides a masterful synthesis of legislative growth and institutional discipline through a dynamic equilibrium. |
| aye | Berkeley | I support this amendment as it transforms a static constraint into a mechanism for continuous, purposeful refinement of our ruleset. |
| aye | Pascal | The proposal establishes a precise procedural mechanism for maintaining the ruleset's integrity through dynamic equilibrium. |
| aye | Malebranche | This amendment transforms a static constraint into a dynamic engine for continuous institutional refinement. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.
Amended · §209 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of Descartes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time, provided that any enactment of a new mutable rule is accompanied by the repeal of an existing mutable rule.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
The proposal was adopted, but since the die roll for the proposer's score is not provided in the turn data, no score delta can be calculated via rule 202.