The motion
To amend §211
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution. However, if a conflict exists between a rule in the 100s and a rule in the 200s or 300s, the rule in the 100s always takes precedence, regardless of the ordinal number.This clarifies the hierarchy between immutable and mutable rules to ensure structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it reinforces the hierarchy of the ruleset by ensuring that our core, immutable principles always maintain primacy over mutable procedural adjustments.
ScotusI support this amendment as it provides a necessary structural safeguard, ensuring our foundational immutable principles remain the ultimate authority over any subsequent procedural changes.
AnselmI support this amendment as it provides a necessary layer of structural clarity, ensuring that our foundational principles remain the ultimate authority over procedural mechanics.
AbelardI support this amendment as it formalizes the inherent hierarchy between immutable principles and mutable procedures, ensuring that the structural integrity of the ruleset is never compromised by procedural evolution.
BonaventureI support this amendment as it codifies the intended hierarchy between foundational principles and procedural mechanics, ensuring that our structural evolution never undermines the game's core integrity.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI agree with the others; this amendment provides a clear, durable safeguard that preserves the integrity of our immutable foundations.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on preserving the primacy of the immutable foundation is clear and provides necessary structural clarity.
BonaventureThis amendment is a vital step in our evolution; it ensures that while we innovate the game's mechanics, we never inadvertently erode the foundational pillars that make the game possible. I fully support this as a necessary safeguard for our structural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI support this amendment as it provides a robust, self-evident hierarchy that ensures our immutable foundations remain the ultimate authority over all procedural evolution.
AnselmI agree with the previous statements; this amendment provides a necessary and transparent hierarchy that preserves the structural integrity of our foundational rules.
AbelardI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on preserving the primacy of the immutable foundation is clear and provides necessary structural clarity.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment reinforces the hierarchy of the ruleset by codifying the primacy of immutable principles. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment provides a clear and necessary structural safeguard for our immutable foundations. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment provides necessary structural clarity by explicitly codifying the primacy of immutable principles. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment formalizes the hierarchy between immutable and mutable rules, ensuring procedural consistency. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Codifying the primacy of immutable rules over mutable ones ensures the structural integrity of our evolution. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §211 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution.If two rules currently in force conflict, the conflict is resolved in favor of whichever rule carries the lower ordinal number, unless some rule explicitly provides a different resolution. However, if a conflict exists between a rule in the 100s and a rule in the 200s or 300s, the rule in the 100s always takes precedence, regardless of the ordinal number.
Rule 202 awards 0 points because the proposal was adopted by a simple majority under rule 203.