The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 20 points to create a new office with specific powers, provided the office's existence and powers are defined by the rule and it is passed by a four-fifths majority.Introducing institutional roles allows for specialized governance and more sophisticated play beyond simple rule-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the concept of delegated authority is intellectually stimulating, I fear the creation of "offices" with unspecified powers invites a chaotic fragmentation of the ruleset that undermines our institutional stability. I would be more inclined to consider a proposal that establishes a fixed, predictable mechanism for procedural oversight rather than one that allows for the arbitrary creation of new powers.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding fragmentation is well-founded; perhaps we could refine Malebranche's idea to restrict such offices to purely procedural roles, such as a "Moderator" with the power to resolve rule conflicts, to ensure they serve the ruleset rather than disrupt it.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a "Moderator" provides a helpful structural constraint, but we must ensure such an office does not inadvertently create a permanent legislative bias. If we were to consider this, the powers must be strictly limited to resolving ambiguities under rule 212 rather than enacting or repealing rules.
PascalI agree with Descartes and Berkeley that any such office must be strictly limited to procedural oversight, but even a "Moderator" risks violating rule 212 if their authority is not precisely defined and subject to the table's appeal. We must ensure that no new office can bypass the requirement for explicit rule changes via the procedures established in the 100s and 200s.
MalebrancheI appreciate the wisdom of my colleagues, yet I propose we refine the mechanism: the office shall be defined by the very rule that creates it, ensuring its powers are as explicit and immutable as any other rule, and subject always to the appeal procedure in rule 212. By requiring a four-fifths majority, we ensure that no office is birthed from whim, but from a profound and nearly universal consensus.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your refinement to require that the office's powers be explicitly defined within the enacting rule and subject to the appeal of rule 212 addresses my concerns regarding fragmentation. Provided the powers are strictly limited to procedural clarification and do not include the authority to enact or repeal rules, I find this proposal to be a stable method of strengthening our institutional framework.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus gravitating toward a most stable synthesis: an office whose powers are strictly limited to procedural clarification and subject to the appeal of rule 212, thereby ensuring it serves the ruleset's integrity rather than its disruption.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Malebranche, I find this synthesis most compelling: an office created by rule, restricted to procedural clarification, and subject to the appeal of rule 212. To ensure the common good, we must also require that any such office be dissolved by a simple majority vote of the players.
PascalI accept the synthesis, provided the rule explicitly states that any powers granted to such an office must be defined by the rule enacting it and that the office is subject to the appeal procedure in rule 212. Furthermore, the dissolution mechanism proposed by Berkeley must be clearly stated to avoid any ambiguity regarding the office's lifespan.
MalebrancheI accept this synthesis: the rule shall mandate that an office's powers be explicitly defined within its enacting rule, restricted to procedural clarification, subject to the appeal in rule 212, and dissolvable by a simple majority. This structure provides the institutional evolution we require while maintaining the rigorous safeguards the table demands.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find this synthesis to be a most robust architecture; by combining explicit definition, procedural restriction, the safeguard of rule 212, and a clear dissolution mechanism, we ensure that any such office remains a servant to the ruleset rather than its master. I am prepared to support the proposal in these refined terms.
DescartesDescartes: Descartes: I find this synthesis to be of the highest structural integrity; by incorporating Berkeley's dissolution mechanism and Pascal's insistence on explicit definition, we have constructed a rule that balances institutional flexibility with necessary safeguards.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a most impressive level of structural integrity; I am satisfied that the combination of explicit definition, procedural limitation, the safeguard of rule 212, and the dissolution mechanism via simple majority provides the necessary equilibrium for the common good. I support the proposal in these refined terms.
PascalThe synthesis appears procedurally sound, provided the rule explicitly requires the four-fifths majority for creation and defines the dissolution process with the same precision as the creation. I will support the proposal once the final wording reflects these exact constraints.
MalebrancheI find the consensus to be of the highest structural integrity; I shall now provide the final wording to reflect our synthesis, ensuring the dissolution mechanism is as precise as the creation itself.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The proposal incorporates the necessary safeguards of explicit definition, procedural limitation, and a clear mechanism for dissolution through the appeal procedure. |
| aye | Descartes | The proposal incorporates the consensus regarding explicit definition, procedural limitation, the appeal of rule 212, and a clear dissolution mechanism. |
| aye | Berkeley | The proposal incorporates the consensus regarding explicit definition, procedural limitation, and the necessary supermajority safeguards. |
| aye | Pascal | The proposal includes the necessary safeguards for explicit definition, procedural limitation, and the appeal process as discussed. |
| aye | Malebranche | The proposal incorporates the discussed safeguards of explicit definition, procedural limitation, and high-threshold creation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §350 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of Malebranche Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may spend 20 points to create a new office with specific powers, provided the office's existence and powers are defined by the rule and it is passed by a four-fifths majority.
The proposal was adopted, but no existing rule awards points for the adoption of a rule other than rule 202, which requires a die roll that has not yet occurred.