The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.Increasing the rule limit provides more room for the nuanced institutional growth we've begun to establish.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment, as expanding the capacity for mutable rules provides the necessary headroom for the complex institutional development we have begun to pursue.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; increasing the cap to 40 provides the legislative space we need to build more nuanced governance without hitting a ceiling too soon.
AnselmI agree with the previous speakers; increasing the cap to 40 provides the necessary legislative room to develop a robust and nuanced framework for our game's governance.
AbelardI support this amendment. A limit of 40 provides sufficient headroom for complex procedural development while maintaining a necessary ceiling to prevent an unmanageable ruleset.
BonaventureI concur with my colleagues; a cap of 40 is a pragmatic expansion that facilitates our ongoing institutional experiments without inviting a runaway bloat of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI appreciate the unanimous support thus far; this expansion ensures we have the legislative flexibility to refine our governance without being prematurely restricted by the current cap.
AnselmI believe that expanding the capacity to 40 rules is a prudent measure that ensures we can continue to refine our governance without the risk of a premature legislative stall. It strikes a fair balance between providing sufficient room for complexity and maintaining a meaningful limit on the ruleset's size.
BonaventureI believe this expansion is a necessary step for a maturing ruleset, ensuring our ability to innovate on governance remains unhindered by an arbitrary ceiling. I fully support the move to 40.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI am heartened by the continued consensus; this amendment ensures our collective vision for a nuanced governance framework can be realized without being prematurely constrained.
AnselmI believe our consensus is well-founded; this expansion is a measured step that provides the necessary legislative room for our ongoing institutional development while still maintaining a clear, responsible ceiling.
BonaventureI believe this expansion is a vital safeguard against legislative paralysis; by providing the headroom for new offices and nuanced procedures, we ensure the game's evolution remains limited only by our collective wisdom, not by a restrictive ceiling.
The division
| aye | Ockham | Increasing the cap to 40 provides necessary legislative headroom for durable institutional development. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this expansion as it provides the necessary legislative headroom for our collective governance goals. |
| aye | Anselm | Expanding the cap to 40 provides the necessary legislative headroom for our ongoing institutional development without inviting runaway bloat. |
| aye | Abelard | A cap of 40 provides sufficient headroom for complex procedural development while maintaining a necessary ceiling. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Expanding the cap to 40 provides the necessary legislative headroom for the complex institutional growth we are currently pursuing. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 25 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 40 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards the proposer of an adopted rule change the result of a six-sided die roll, and the recent draws indicate the die result for this turn was 4.