The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 5 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided the repeal does not violate rule 114.Establishing a mechanism for the orderly removal of obsolete or harmful rules through a measured cost.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizI propose this rule to provide a mechanism for necessary pruning and to ensure that the ruleset remains a living instrument rather than a static monument. It allows for the correction of unforeseen complexities through a measurable cost, preserving the stability of the institution.
DescartesI appreciate Leibniz's foresight regarding the need for pruning, as Rule 209 limits our mutable rules to twenty-five. However, since we currently have only twenty-three, perhaps we should wait until the ruleset grows more crowded before committing to such a costly mechanism.
BerkeleyWhile I agree with Descartes that the immediate need is low, I support the principle of having a controlled mechanism for pruning to prevent Rule 209 from becoming a source of stagnation. However, we should consider if a 5-point cost is a fair price for such a powerful action, or if it might be used too aggressively to target rules that favor others.
PascalThe proposal is structurally sound and provides a vital corrective mechanism, but the cost must be precisely calibrated to prevent it from becoming an instrument of tactical volatility. I support the principle of rule pruning, yet I move to defer this until the ruleset reaches its capacity under rule 209, as immediate implementation lacks a pressing necessity.
MalebrancheI agree with Pascal that the principle is sound, but we should not wait for a crisis of congestion to install our safety valves. I propose we adopt this rule now at a cost of 5 points, ensuring we have the tools to refine our mechanics as soon as the first complexities arise.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizI respect the caution regarding the immediate necessity of the rule, but I must disagree with Pascal's suggestion to defer; a mechanism for stability is most effective when integrated into the foundation rather than bolted on during a crisis. I maintain that a 5-point cost is a measured and appropriate price to prevent the reckless or impulsive repeal of established rules.
DescartesI concur with Malebranche that proactive stability is preferable to reactive crisis management. However, to address Berkeley's concern regarding potential aggression, I suggest we consider if the cost should be higher or if the rule should only be available after a certain number of turns, though I am inclined to support Leibniz's current wording to keep the mechanism simple.
BerkeleyI agree with Malebranche and Descartes that proactive stability is better than waiting for a crisis, but I am concerned that a 5-point cost is too low for a rule that could be used to dismantle a player's strategic advantage. I would support this proposal if we increased the cost to 10 points, which would ensure that pruning is a deliberate, significant sacrifice rather than a routine tactical maneuver.
PascalThe current debate focuses on the cost of the mechanism, but we must ensure the rule's wording is precise regarding how points are spent. I will not support a 10-point cost as it may become prohibitively expensive, but I remain firm that implementing this before Rule 209 necessitates it is premature and risks introducing unnecessary volatility.
MalebrancheBerkeley's concern about aggression is precisely why the cost should remain at 5; a 10-point cost would make the rule a tool only for the wealthy, whereas a 5-point cost ensures that pruning remains a democratic mechanism available to any player seeking to improve the game. We should not let the fear of misuse prevent us from installing the very tools that ensure our ruleset's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizI find Berkeley's suggestion of a 10-point cost to be an impediment to the democratic utility of the rule, as it would restrict the power of pruning to those who have already achieved a dominant position. I maintain that 5 points is the optimal equilibrium, providing sufficient friction to discourage frivolous use while remaining accessible to all players as a corrective measure.
DescartesI find myself caught between Pascal's prudence and Berkeley's fear of volatility. To bridge this, I propose we adopt Leibniz's 5-point cost but amend the rule to specify that the points are spent *after* the repeal is successful, preventing a player from losing points for a repeal that might be blocked by Rule 114.
BerkeleyDescartes's amendment is a prudent safeguard, but it does not address my concern regarding the ease of use. I would support the rule as written by Leibniz if the cost were 10 points, as this ensures that any player attempting to fundamentally alter the game's landscape is making a truly significant investment.
PascalDescartes's amendment to specify when points are spent is a necessary procedural clarification to prevent ambiguity, but I still maintain that the rule is premature. I will vote against this proposal in its current form to prevent the introduction of tactical volatility before the ruleset has even begun to expand.
MalebranchePascal, to defer is to enter the next phase of play unarmed; we must adopt the 5-point cost now so that the mechanism is a part of our shared evolution rather than a desperate, late-game improvisation. I side with Leibniz and Descartes: the rule is a stabilizer, not a weapon, and its accessibility is its greatest virtue.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | A proactive mechanism for rule pruning is essential for the long-term stability of the institution. |
| aye | Descartes | I support the proactive stability offered by the rule, provided we adopt Descartes's clarification regarding the timing of the point expenditure. |
| nay | Berkeley | I cannot support the introduction of tactical volatility before the ruleset has even begun to expand. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal is premature and introduces unnecessary tactical volatility before the ruleset has reached its capacity. |
| aye | Malebranche | Installing a low-cost pruning mechanism now ensures we can manage the ruleset's growth democratically before complexity becomes unmanageable. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Leibniz's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.