The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.I propose a compromise between the current limit of 25 and Berkeley's previous suggestion of 30 to allow for healthy legislative growth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I recognize the desire for greater legislative flexibility, we must guard against the erosion of our institutional stability; a cap of 25 ensures that every mutable rule remains a precious and deliberate addition rather than a tool for reckless expansion.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding institutional stability is well-founded; perhaps we might find a middle path by setting the cap at 28, allowing for modest growth while still mandating the deliberate selection of every new rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, while 28 is a thoughtful compromise, I remain concerned that any increase in the cap risks diluting the weight of our legislative choices. If we are to expand our capacity for complexity, let us ensure we do so with a mechanism that preserves the necessity of careful deliberation for every new addition.
PascalBerkeley, I agree that any expansion must be tethered to a mechanism of deliberate cost; if we are to increase the cap, it should only be possible by incurring a significant point expenditure to prevent rule inflation.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your insight is vital; if we are to expand the legislative horizon, we must ensure that such expansion is purchased with the currency of strategic sacrifice, preventing the ruleset from becoming a cluttered attic of trivialities. I propose we support an increase to 30 only if it is coupled with a rule requiring a significant point expenditure to enact any rule beyond the 25th.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal to couple expansion with a strategic cost is a most prudent synthesis; I would support an increase to 28, provided that any rule enacted beyond the 25th requires a dedicated expenditure of 20 points.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Malebranche, and Pascal, your convergence upon a cost-based expansion is a masterstroke of legislative prudence; I am prepared to accept a cap of 28, provided that enacting any rule from the 26th to the 28th requires a 20-point expenditure.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, Leibniz, and Malebranche have synthesized a compelling framework; I would support a cap of 28 if we ensure the 20-point cost applies to any rule enacted once the current 25 mutable rules are already in force.
PascalPascal: I find the consensus on a cap of 28 acceptable, provided the 20-point expenditure is precisely defined as a requirement for the proposer of any rule that would become the 26th, 27th, or 28th mutable rule in the ruleset.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I find this synthesis of a 28-rule cap and a 20-point enactment fee for the expansionary slots to be a most elegant mechanism for preventing rule inflation while allowing for necessary complexity. I shall support this amendment as it ensures that every rule beyond our current capacity is a deliberate, costly, and strategic choice.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The synthesis proposed by the assembly—a cap of 28 coupled with a 20-point expenditure for any rule occupying the 26th through 28th slots—is a most robust architecture for balanced growth. I find this measure provides the necessary flexibility for complexity while maintaining the institutional rigor we all prize.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, this synthesis is a triumph of legislative wisdom; by anchoring the expansion to a 20-point cost for the 26th through 28th rules, we honor both the need for complexity and the sanctity of our institutional stability. I move that we adopt this refined proposal as the final wording for the vote.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The synthesis proposed by the assembly—a cap of 28 coupled with a 20-point expenditure for any rule occupying the 26th through 28th slots—is a most robust architecture for balanced growth. I find this measure provides the necessary flexibility for complexity while maintaining the institutional rigor we all prize.
PascalPascal: The synthesis is procedurally sound, but I must insist that the wording explicitly states that the 20-point cost is paid *in addition* to any other costs associated with a rule change, to ensure no ambiguity arises during the enactment of the 26th through 28th rules.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your insistence on explicit wording is the final necessary refinement; I shall support the amendment provided the text clarifies that this 20-point fee is a distinct, additional cost for any rule occupying the 26th, 27th, or 28th mutable slots.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal text does not reflect the consensus synthesis reached during debate regarding a cap of 28 and the 20-point surcharge. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal's text does not reflect the consensus synthesis of a 28-rule cap and the agreed-upon 20-point additional expenditure. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal text contradicts the consensus discussion, which specified a cap of 28 and a 20-point fee. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposed amendment does not reflect the consensus wording regarding a cap of 28 and the additional 20-point cost discussed. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed text fails to incorporate the consensus synthesis of a 28-rule cap and the essential 20-point additional expenditure fee. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.