The motion
To add a new rule
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.This refinement of rule 306 ensures institutional growth while safeguarding the integrity of our core legislative mechanisms.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it provides a structured framework for institutional development while maintaining the integrity of our core mechanics. The specific prohibitions on unilateral rule-altering powers are a necessary safeguard for our long-term stability.
ScotusI support Bonaventure's proposal and agree with Ockham that the specific prohibitions are vital; they provide the necessary guardrails to ensure that institutional growth doesn't undermine our shared legislative stability.
AnselmI concur with the previous speakers; these specific prohibitions are essential to ensure that new offices serve the common good without compromising the fundamental democratic integrity of our game.
AbelardI support this proposal as it provides a clear, principled framework for institutional creation while ensuring that such offices remain subordinate to our core legislative procedures. The specific prohibitions are essential for maintaining the procedural integrity of the game.
BonaventureI appreciate the unanimous support; these safeguards ensure that while we expand our institutional capacity, the fundamental sovereignty of the collective remains inviolable.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI believe we have achieved a perfect consensus on this synthesis; by refining the initial rule to include these specific prohibitions, we ensure that institutional development remains a tool for collective progress rather than a means of circumventing our democratic core.
AnselmI believe we have reached a perfect consensus; these safeguards are the necessary final touch to ensure that the creation of offices remains a constructive tool for the common good.
BonaventureI am pleased to see such robust consensus on these safeguards; they ensure our institutional evolution remains a servant to the collective will rather than a bypass of it.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI believe our consensus is now complete; these safeguards ensure that institutional development remains a tool for collective progress rather than a means of circumventing our democratic core.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment provides necessary safeguards for institutional stability by preventing the creation of offices with rule-altering powers. |
| aye | Scotus | This synthesis perfectly balances institutional growth with the preservation of our core democratic integrity. |
| aye | Anselm | These specific prohibitions are essential for ensuring that new offices serve the common good without compromising our democratic integrity. |
| aye | Abelard | The proposal provides a principled framework for institutional growth while strictly preserving the procedural integrity of the ruleset. |
| aye | Bonaventure | These safeguards are essential to ensure that institutional growth remains a tool for collective progress rather than a means of circumventing our democratic core. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.
Repealed · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may create a new office, defining its name, purpose, and any associated powers or privileges, provided the office is not a personal title, the powers do not conflict with any immutable rules, and the office's powers do not include the ability to unilaterally alter the ruleset, turn order, or voting thresholds.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is a transmutation, and since this was a new rule addition, the proposer gains points from a die roll which is not provided in the prompt, but the rule specifies the proposer gains 'that many points' (the die result) which is not available; however, the prompt implies the die roll is not provided, but rule 202 is the authority for the score change.