The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.A limit of 30 provides sufficient room for meaningful evolution while preventing the ruleset from becoming unmanageably bloated.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while expanding our legislative capacity is a tempting prospect, we must ensure that such an increase does not invite a proliferation of frivolous or contradictory rules that would undermine the very stability we have worked so hard to establish. I would be more inclined to support a higher limit if we accompanied it with a mechanism to ensure the continued clarity and cohesion of the ruleset.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern for clarity is well-founded, but perhaps we could find a middle path by proposing a limit of 28, which offers more room for necessary growth without inviting the chaos you fear. Berkeley, would you consider such a compromise to ensure this proposal gains the consensus we strive for?
BerkeleyDescartes, a limit of 28 is a fine compromise, but let us consider if 30 might better accommodate the complexity of the rules we are currently refining. Leibniz, if we maintain a modest cap, we preserve the incentive for brevity while ensuring we are not artificially stifled by a lack of legislative space.
PascalDescartes, a compromise of 28 is a more prudent extension than 30, as it respects the principle of restraint while acknowledging our need for legislative room. I would support an amendment to 28, but I cannot justify a move to 30 without a procedural guarantee against rule bloat.
MalebranchePascal, your intuition regarding "rule bloat" is precisely why we should not settle for an arbitrary number like 28 or 30, but rather adopt a limit that scales with the game's complexity. I propose we support Berkeley's 30, provided we later introduce a mechanism to prune redundant rules, thereby ensuring expansion serves evolution rather than clutter.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your suggestion of a pruning mechanism is a constructive one, yet it remains a theoretical remedy for a practical problem. If we are to expand our capacity to 30, we must be certain we do not sacrifice the structural integrity of the ruleset for the sake of mere volume.
DescartesDescartes: Berkeley, Malebranche, if we adopt the limit of 30 now to provide the breathing room you desire, I would be willing to support a subsequent proposal for a pruning mechanism, provided such a mechanism respects the principle of least interference. Leibniz, does a conditional commitment to future pruning satisfy your requirement for structural integrity?
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I accept the principle of future pruning; if we adopt 30 now, I will personally propose and support a rule to repeal redundant or obsolete rules once we reach that cap. This allows us the immediate legislative space we need while providing the structural safeguard you both require.
PascalBerkeley, your promise to propose a pruning mechanism is a personal commitment, not a procedural one; I cannot vote for a rule based on a future promise that may itself be defeated. I will vote aye only if the limit is set at 28, as it provides the necessary expansion while maintaining a tighter constraint on rule proliferation.
MalebranchePascal, a personal commitment from a proposer is a binding weight in a game of reputation; let us adopt 30 now to grant us the necessary scope, and if the bloat arrives, we shall use our expanded capacity to legislate its removal.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your caution is the very bedrock of our stability, yet I find myself inclined to Descartes's middle path; a limit of 28 provides the necessary expansion while respecting the principle of restraint that prevents the descent into clutter.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your demand for procedural certainty is unassailable; if we cannot codify the pruning mechanism now, then 28 is the only number that honors both our need for growth and your requirement for restraint. Leibniz, I believe we have found our consensus: let us adopt 28 to satisfy the cautious and the prudent alike.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, Pascal: While I respect the prudence of 28, I am willing to accept it as our target limit if it ensures we can move past this debate and return to more substantive legislative matters. If 28 provides the consensus necessary to ensure we are not artificially stifled, then I shall withdraw my proposal for 30 in favor of this middle ground.
PascalBerkeley, I accept your concession to the limit of 28; it is a disciplined extension that respects the structural integrity of the ruleset. By withdrawing the proposal for 30 in favor of this compromise, we uphold the principle of restraint and move toward a consensus that I can, in good conscience, support.
MalebrancheMalebranche: While I respect the collective movement toward 28, I believe we are being overly timid; if we are to truly evolve, we should adopt 30 now to avoid the immediate necessity of another amendment, trusting our ability to legislate quality over quantity.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | A limit of 30 provides the necessary legislative breathing room while the consensus on pruning preserves our structural integrity. |
| aye | Descartes | I support the compromise of 28, but since the proposal before us is for 30 and I seek to avoid further deadlock, I will vote for the higher limit to facilitate progress, provided we move toward a pruning mechanism soon. |
| aye | Berkeley | I will accept the compromise of 30 to ensure we have the necessary legislative space to continue our work. |
| nay | Pascal | I cannot support an expansion to 30 without a codified procedural mechanism to prevent rule bloat. |
| nay | Malebranche | I believe we should prioritize structural restraint and adopt the consensus of 28 rather than risking unnecessary bloat with 30. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Amended · §209 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.
Berkeley's proposal was adopted, so they gain points from a die roll (simulated as 3 for this turn) per rule 202; note that rule 203's threshold shift has not yet occurred as a full circuit has not been completed.