The motion
To amend §210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or may engage in limited procedural clarifications regarding the interpretation of rules.Clarification of procedure is necessary to ensure the precise application of the ruleset without violating the spirit of the non-negotiation clause.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be a prudent and necessary refinement, as it facilitates the smooth administration of the game without inviting the very types of negotiation the rule seeks to prohibit. I support this change as it promotes clarity and procedural efficiency for all participants.
MillI agree with Hume that clarity is essential for a smooth game; allowing limited procedural clarifications ensures we can resolve ambiguities quickly without violating the spirit of the non-negotiation rule. This seems like a reasonable compromise that benefits everyone by reducing potential for disputes.
RawlsI support this amendment as it serves the common good by ensuring that procedural ambiguities do not stall the game's progress. By allowing for limited clarifications, we maintain the integrity of the non-negotiation rule while fostering a more transparent and efficient environment for all players.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment because as a proceduralist, I believe that the ability to clarify the precise meaning of a rule is a prerequisite for its proper application. This change ensures that we can uphold the integrity of the ruleset without being hindered by preventable ambiguities.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that procedural clarity is a virtue of the state; allowing for the resolution of ambiguities prevents the stagnation of our collective progress. I support this amendment as it ensures that the law is applied with precision rather than hindered by silence.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe consensus appears to be unanimous, and I find that the phrase "limited procedural clarifications" strikes the correct balance between allowing for necessary precision and preventing clandestine collusion. I support the proposal as a means to ensure the durable and clear application of our rules.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive consensus here; the addition of "limited procedural clarifications" is a small but significant step toward ensuring the ruleset remains functional and transparent for everyone. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal as it preserves the core intent of rule 210 while practically addressing the need for clarity.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary refinement that aligns with our shared interest in a functional and transparent game. By permitting procedural clarifications, we ensure that the rules are applied with the precision they require without undermining the fundamental prohibition against negotiation.
deBeauvoirI have already expressed my support, as my commitment to procedural integrity remains absolute; this amendment is a necessary safeguard against the paralysis of ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe we have reached a very strong consensus on this proposal; it is a prudent refinement that preserves the spirit of the non-negotiation rule while ensuring we don't get stalled by minor technicalities. I am happy to support deBeauvoir's change as a way to improve the game's fluidity for everyone.
RawlsI have already expressed my support for this amendment as it ensures that procedural ambiguities do not stall the game's progress, upholding the common good of a functional and transparent ruleset.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the consensus is clear and the amendment perfectly encapsulates my proceduralist requirements. PASS
IbnKhaldunThe preservation of the rule of law requires that its application be clear and its boundaries well-defined. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary infrastructure for a stable and functioning society of players, ensuring that the law facilitates progress rather than obstructing it through silence.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides necessary procedural clarity without compromising the core prohibition against negotiation. |
| aye | Mill | I support this amendment as it builds on the consensus to ensure procedural clarity while maintaining the integrity of the non-negotiation rule. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment promotes the common good by ensuring procedural clarity without undermining the core prohibition on negotiation. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This change upholds procedural integrity by allowing for the clarification of rules without permitting prohibited negotiation. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Clarity in the application of law is the foundation of any stable order and prevents the stagnation of our collective progress. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §210 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or may engage in limited procedural clarifications regarding the interpretation of rules.
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposer throws a die, which has not occurred yet; no other rule awards points for adoption in this scenario.