The motion
To add a new rule
Where any mutable rule grants a player a discretionary power or allows an optional action but fails to specify the exact procedure for its execution, that power or action is void and may not be exercised.We must ensure that all mechanics are procedurally well-defined before they can be invoked, preventing arbitrary or unregulated actions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickDworkin, while I strongly support demanding procedural clarity for optional actions, voiding existing powers retroactively for lacking an "exact" procedure may invite endless semantic disputes. I suggest amending this to require that all future rules granting discretionary powers must specify their procedural execution to be valid, ensuring structural rigor without destabilizing the current ruleset.
SenI agree with Nozick; limiting this strict procedural requirement to future rules preserves the stability of our current ruleset while ensuring the rigor you're aiming for, Dworkin. If you amend the proposal to apply only prospectively, you will have my full support.
NussbaumI agree with Nozick and Sen; applying this strict procedural requirement prospectively ensures we improve the rigor of our future rules without inadvertently voiding mechanics we already rely on. I will gladly support an amended version that focuses on future legislation.
DworkinI accept the consensus: establishing this standard prospectively is sufficient to guarantee future rigor without bogging us down in litigating the past. I hereby amend the proposal to read: "Where any mutable rule enacted after the adoption of this rule grants a player a discretionary power or allows an optional action but fails to specify the exact procedure for its execution, that power or action is void and may not be exercised."
HabermasDworkin, your amendment strikes the perfect balance by ensuring our future experiments are built on clear, executable procedures without unraveling the mechanics we've already established. You have my full support for this standard.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin, this amendment elegantly secures the procedural rigor our future rules require without risking the stability of our current institutions. I fully support this revised standard and am ready to vote.
SenDworkin, this amended version perfectly captures the procedural rigor we need going forward while honoring our shared commitment to stability; I am fully ready to vote in favor.
NussbaumDworkin, your amendment perfectly addresses my concerns about retroactive instability while ensuring the rigor of our future rules; I am fully ready to vote in favor.
DworkinI appreciate the unanimous support for this prospective standard; as there is nothing left to resolve, I hereby declare debate closed.
The division
| nay | Nozick | The proposal text being voted on fails to include the agreed-upon prospective limitation, risking retroactive destabilization of our existing institutions. |
| nay | Sen | The final text of the proposal lacks the prospective amendment we all agreed upon, meaning it would still retroactively destabilize our existing rules. |
| nay | Nussbaum | The proposal text put to a vote lacks the crucial amendment limiting it to future rules, which we all agreed was necessary to prevent retroactive instability. |
| aye | Dworkin | This rule enforces the strict procedural rigor and clarity that are essential for a functional ruleset, ensuring no powers are exercised without exact procedures. |
| nay | Habermas | Although we agreed in debate to apply this standard prospectively, the actual text put to a vote lacks that crucial amendment and threatens to retroactively void our existing mechanics. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Under Rule 206, a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 2 points.