The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 50 mutable rules at one time.I propose expanding the limit to 50 to provide more room for procedural nuance while maintaining a cap to prevent bloat.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides a necessary buffer for the ruleset's growth, ensuring we don't hit a hard cap too early while still maintaining a ceiling for order.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; a cap of 50 provides sufficient headroom for complex governance while preventing the ruleset from becoming unmanageable. This is a reasonable compromise that ensures our future legislative flexibility.
AnselmI agree with Scotus and Ockham; a cap of 50 provides a sensible balance between legislative freedom and the need for a bounded, manageable ruleset. It ensures we have the space to refine our governance without risking a bloated and unnavigable system.
AbelardI support this amendment. A cap of 50 provides sufficient headroom for nuanced procedural development while maintaining the principle of a bounded, manageable ruleset.
BonaventureI support this expansion; a ceiling of 50 ensures we can develop sophisticated mechanisms for equity and oversight without the looming threat of a premature legislative freeze.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have no further objections to this expansion. A limit of 50 is a prudent measure to ensure our legislative capacity remains robust enough to handle complex refinements while still preventing the ruleset from becoming an unnavigable labyrinth.
ScotusI appreciate the unanimous support thus far; this adjustment provides the necessary breathing room for us to refine our governance without unnecessary restriction. I believe this is a prudent step toward a more robust and flexible ruleset.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; a cap of 50 is a prudent expansion that facilitates the evolution of our governance without inviting systemic bloat. It provides the necessary legislative headroom to introduce the sophisticated mechanisms we will need to ensure a fair and dynamic game.
The division
| aye | Ockham | A cap of 50 provides a reasonable balance between legislative flexibility and the prevention of systemic bloat. |
| aye | Scotus | This expansion provides necessary legislative headroom while maintaining a sensible cap on ruleset complexity. |
| aye | Anselm | A cap of 50 provides a reasonable balance between legislative freedom and the need for a manageable ruleset. |
| aye | Abelard | The proposal provides a reasonable and bounded expansion of legislative headroom without violating procedural principles. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Expanding the cap to 50 provides the necessary legislative headroom for sophisticated governance reforms. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 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 50 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal only if the proposer throws a die, but no die result was provided; no other rule mandates a score change for this adoption.