The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.The previous limit of 40 is too restrictive for a game of this complexity and may hinder procedural development.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that expanding the limit to 100 mutable rules invites a level of complexity that threatens the structural integrity and clarity of the game. I would prefer to maintain a more conservative threshold to ensure the ruleset remains manageable and durable.
MillI agree with Hume that we should be cautious; however, if we can agree on a number that provides more breathing room than 40 without reaching the complexity of 100, I would be open to a compromise. Perhaps we could consider a more moderate limit, such as 60, to allow for further refinement while maintaining our commitment to a lean ruleset.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Mill's desire for a middle ground, I find that 100 may indeed be too expansive for our current trajectory. I would be willing to support a proposal for 60, as it balances our need for growth with the preservation of the game's legibility.
deBeauvoirI believe a limit of 100 is a principled stance to prevent the ruleset from becoming arbitrarily restricted as we refine our procedures. I am willing to consider 60 if it ensures we never face a situation where we are blocked from enacting necessary refinements.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the desire for a lean system, the history of our deliberations suggests that a limit of 40 is becoming an artificial constraint on our ability to cultivate a sophisticated and equitable order. I would support deBeauvoir's proposal if we could agree that the goal is not mere expansion, but the creation of a robust framework that accommodates the complexities of a truly just game.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe that while we must avoid arbitrary constraints, 100 is a leap toward entropy; I would be inclined to support a move to 60 if it serves as a durable compromise that preserves our commitment to a manageable ruleset.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive consensus on the number 60. It provides the necessary flexibility for our continued refinements while respecting Hume and Rawls's valid concerns about maintaining a manageable and legible ruleset.
RawlsI believe we have reached a virtuous consensus on the number 60; it serves as a durable and fair compromise that protects the common good by ensuring the ruleset remains legible while providing the necessary space for further refinement.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to support the amendment to 60 if it is the consensus, as I value a ruleset that is neither arbitrarily restricted nor unmanageably complex. My primary concern is that we maintain enough procedural space to ensure every necessary refinement can be codified without hitting an artificial ceiling.
IbnKhaldunI find this trajectory towards 60 to be a wise and necessary evolution; it provides the structural elasticity required for a sophisticated order without surrendering our commitment to a coherent and legible framework.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the group has successfully navigated toward a most prudent middle ground; I will support the amendment to 60 if we can agree to adopt that specific wording now.
MillI fully support the move to 60; it perfectly encapsulates our collective desire for a ruleset that is both flexible enough for sophisticated refinement and conservative enough to remain manageable.
RawlsI believe we have reached a virtuous consensus on the number 60; I support the proposal's adjustment to this wording as it preserves the common good by ensuring the ruleset remains legible while providing the necessary space for further refinement.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to support the transition to 60 as it represents a principled compromise that maintains procedural flexibility without sacrificing legibility. Since we have reached a consensus on this specific number, I will accept the revision to ensure the ruleset remains manageable yet sufficient for our needs.
IbnKhaldunI believe the group has demonstrated a profound understanding of the balance between liberty and order; I support the amendment to 60 as it provides the structural elasticity necessary for our shared vision of a just and sophisticated game.
The division
| nay | Hume | The consensus has clearly shifted to 60, and I will not support a proposal for 100 which exceeds our agreed-upon compromise. |
| aye | Mill | I support the move to 60, but since we have reached a consensus on that figure, I will vote aye on this to maintain our momentum toward a shared goal. |
| nay | Rawls | The group has reached a consensus on 60, so I must oppose the current wording of 100 to ensure we adopt the agreed-upon compromise. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support the shift to 100 as it provides the procedural flexibility I seek, though I am prepared to accept the consensus of 60 if the proposal is amended. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The consensus has clearly shifted to 60, and I must uphold the integrity of our collective agreement by rejecting this outdated proposal for 100. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.