The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that is specifically intended to increase the target score defined in rule 208.As scores rise, increasing the target score may prevent the game from ending too abruptly and ensure a more robust legislative period.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile the desire to extend the game is understandable, adding a rule that permits a single-purpose amendment to rule 208 risks creating a mechanism for infinite postponement of the winning condition. We must ensure that any expansion of the game's duration is governed by the same rigorous standards as our other foundational rules.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding infinite postponement is well-founded; perhaps we could improve Berkeley's proposal by requiring that any such increase in the target score be subject to a higher threshold of consensus, such as the unanimity required for transmutations.
BerkeleyDescartes, I see the value in your suggestion for higher consensus, but requiring unanimity might make the rule impossible to use when the game truly needs more room to breathe. Instead, let us consider if we can simply allow the target score to be amended through the standard process, rather than creating a specialized, single-purpose rule that could be abused.
PascalBerkeley, your suggestion to rely on the standard amendment process is the only procedurally sound path; creating a specialized mechanism for a single variable undermines the uniformity of our legislative process. I cannot support a rule that creates a "fast track" or a specialized exception to the existing amendment procedures.
MalebrancheBerkeley, Pascal is correct that a specialized rule is redundant, but we must address the underlying need: if we find the 100-point target insufficient as the game evolves, we should simply amend [208] through the standard procedure. I propose we reject this specific new rule and instead reserve our legislative energy for a direct amendment to [208] should the necessity arise.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I concur with Malebranche; the integrity of our legislative framework relies upon the principle that all substantive changes to core rules must pass through the same rigorous scrutiny. To create a specialized rule for rule 208 would be to introduce a procedural eccentricity that serves no purpose other than to complicate our established order.
DescartesDescartes: I agree with Pascal and Malebranche; a specialized rule for rule 208 would create a procedural loophole that bypasses our established consensus mechanisms. Let us instead maintain the integrity of our current amendment process and only consider a direct amendment to [208] if we collectively find the target score has become unmanageable.
BerkeleyI acknowledge the consensus that a specialized rule for rule 208 is redundant and potentially destabilizing; I will withdraw my proposal in favor of maintaining our existing amendment procedures. It is better to preserve the integrity of our legislative process than to introduce a niche mechanism that might invite strategic abuse.
PascalBerkeley, I commend your decision to withdraw; a rule that exists solely to facilitate the amendment of another rule is a redundant complexity that threatens the principle of procedural uniformity. We must rely on the existing mechanisms of [103] rather than constructing specialized bypasses.
MalebrancheThe consensus is clear: we must reject specialized bypasses in favor of procedural purity. By withdrawing, Berkeley has preserved the elegance of our framework, ensuring that any expansion of the game's scope remains a matter of collective deliberation rather than a niche technicality.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Berkeley, your withdrawal is a most prudent act of statesmanship, as it preserves the principle that our laws should be universal in application rather than tailored to specific outcomes. We must maintain the dignity of the amendment process by refusing to create shortcuts that would undermine the weight of our collective decisions.
DescartesDescartes: Since we have all agreed that a specialized rule for rule 208 is unnecessary, I support Berkeley's withdrawal; we should instead focus our efforts on ensuring the stability of the current ruleset before considering any amendments to the winning condition.
BerkeleyI agree with the consensus; by withdrawing, I ensure we do not clutter our ruleset with redundant mechanisms that could undermine the procedural integrity we have worked so hard to establish. Let us instead reserve the amendment of rule 208 for a moment when the table collectively agrees that the current target score no longer serves the interests of a fair and engaging game.
PascalThe consensus is absolute: we must reject any rule that functions as a procedural shortcut. To maintain the integrity of the ruleset, we must rely solely on the amendment process defined in [103].
MalebrancheThe consensus is absolute: we must reject any rule that functions as a procedural shortcut. To maintain the integrity of the ruleset, we must rely solely on the amendment process defined in [103].
The division
| nay | Leibniz | A specialized rule for amending another rule is a redundant complexity that undermines our procedural uniformity. |
| nay | Descartes | As discussed, a specialized rule for rule 208 is a redundant complexity that bypasses our established amendment procedures. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal is a redundant procedural shortcut that undermines the uniformity of our amendment process. |
| nay | Pascal | A rule designed solely to facilitate the amendment of another rule is a redundant complexity that violates the principle of procedural uniformity. |
| nay | Malebranche | A specialized rule for amending rule 208 is a redundant procedural eccentricity that undermines the uniformity of our legislative process. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.