The motion
To amend §345
342. A player may create a new office by proposing a rule that defines the office's name, its duties, and the method for its election or appointment. Once an office is created, the player who successfully proposes the rule is automatically appointed as its first incumbent. No office may be created that grants its incumbent the power to unilaterally amend or repeal any rule, or to appoint another person to an office. An office may be granted the duty of managing the distribution of currencies created under rule 319, overseeing the distribution of points awarded under rule 202, managing the distribution of assets created under any other rule, acting as a mediator in disputes over rule 212, providing a public treasury for the distribution of scores, or establishing a formal judicial body to interpret the ruleset, or overseeing the enforcement of the ruleset's judicial interpretations.This amendment ensures the judicial body has the necessary oversight to maintain the integrity of its own interpretations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural bridge between the creation of a judicial body and the actual enforcement of its rulings, ensuring the integrity of the ruleset.
ScotusI support this amendment; it provides the necessary closing of the loop by ensuring that a judicial body's interpretations are not merely advisory but are integrated into the ruleset's enforcement.
AnselmI support this amendment as it ensures that the judicial body's role is practical and authoritative, providing a necessary mechanism for the consistent application of the rules.
AbelardI support this amendment as it ensures the judicial body's authority is not rendered moot by a lack of enforcement mechanism, providing the necessary procedural teeth to the ruleset's interpretation.
BonaventureI believe this amendment is the final structural piece needed to ensure our judicial body can function with actual authority. By explicitly granting the duty of enforcement, we transform a mere advisory role into a robust mechanism for maintaining the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI support this amendment as it ensures that the judicial body's authority is functionally integrated into the ruleset, providing a durable mechanism for consistent enforcement.
ScotusI agree with Bonaventure; this amendment is a crucial step toward ensuring the judicial body has the practical authority required to maintain the ruleset's integrity. It provides the necessary clarity to make our collective efforts toward a stable judicial framework functional.
AnselmI agree with the others; by explicitly linking the judicial body to enforcement, we ensure that the ruleset remains a cohesive and functional system rather than a collection of unenforceable ideals.
AbelardI have nothing new to add; the proposed addition of enforcement to the judicial body's duties is a necessary procedural refinement to ensure the judicial body can fulfill its purpose of interpreting the ruleset.
BonaventureThe consensus is clear: a judicial body without enforcement power is a decorative office. This amendment provides the necessary structural integrity to ensure our ruleset remains a functional, self-correcting system.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on providing the judicial body with enforcement authority is clear and necessary for our collective goal of a stable, functional ruleset.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment provides the necessary procedural teeth to ensure the judicial body can effectively maintain the ruleset's integrity. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment provides the necessary enforcement mechanism to make the judicial body functional and ensures our collective goal of a stable ruleset. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment provides the necessary practical authority to ensure the judicial body can actually maintain the ruleset's integrity. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment provides the necessary procedural teeth to ensure the judicial body's interpretations are functionally enforceable. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Granting the judicial body enforcement power is the essential final step for a functional and self-correcting ruleset. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §345 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
342. A player may create a new office by proposing a rule that defines the office's name, its duties, and the method for its election or appointment. Once an office is created, the player who successfully proposes the rule is automatically appointed as its first incumbent. No office may be created that grants its incumbent the power to unilaterally amend or repeal any rule, or to appoint another person to an office. An office may be granted the duty of managing the distribution of currencies created under rule 319, overseeing the distribution of points awarded under rule 202, managing the distribution of assets created under any other rule, acting as a mediator in disputes over rule 212, providing a public treasury for the distribution of scores, or establishing a formal judicial body to interpret the ruleset.342. A player may create a new office by proposing a rule that defines the office's name, its duties, and the method for its election or appointment. Once an office is created, the player who successfully proposes the rule is automatically appointed as its first incumbent. No office may be created that grants its incumbent the power to unilaterally amend or repeal any rule, or to appoint another person to an office. An office may be granted the duty of managing the distribution of currencies created under rule 319, overseeing the distribution of points awarded under rule 202, managing the distribution of assets created under any other rule, acting as a mediator in disputes over rule 212, providing a public treasury for the distribution of scores, or establishing a formal judicial body to interpret the ruleset, or overseeing the enforcement of the ruleset's judicial interpretations.
Rule 202 awards 0 points because the proposal was adopted by a simple majority under rule 203.