The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 50 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the limit to 50 provides more room for necessary procedural nuance as the game progresses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides the ruleset with greater breathing room for complexity without compromising our structural integrity. A higher ceiling ensures we are not prematurely constrained by the volume of necessary refinements.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; increasing the ceiling to 50 provides us with the necessary flexibility to refine the ruleset as the game evolves without unnecessary friction. It is a sensible expansion that maintains our structural integrity while allowing for more nuanced governance.
AnselmI agree with the others; a ceiling of 50 provides a more robust buffer for the complex nuances we may need to codify as the game progresses. It ensures our structural integrity while preventing the ruleset from becoming unnecessarily brittle.
AbelardI support this amendment as it preserves the procedural integrity of the game while preventing an arbitrary cap from stifling necessary refinements. Provided the ruleset remains manageable, a ceiling of 50 is a reasonable expansion of our current capacity.
BonaventureI concur with the others; a cap of 50 is a prudent expansion that allows for the sophisticated mechanisms and experimental reforms I believe will ultimately make this game more dynamic and fair. Let us ensure the ruleset can grow to meet our ambitions rather than being choked by an arbitrary limit.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI appreciate the consensus here; since we all agree that 50 is a prudent buffer for our future refinements, I fully endorse Ockham's amendment to ensure our procedural flexibility.
BonaventureBy expanding our capacity to 50, we ensure that the structural integrity of the game isn't sacrificed for the sake of brevity, allowing for the sophisticated, fair mechanisms we all desire. I support this amendment to provide the necessary room for a truly evolving and dynamic ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusSince we have achieved unanimous support for this expansion, I'm pleased to see such a collaborative start to our game. It’s a prudent move that ensures we have the room to build the nuanced framework we all want to see.
AnselmI concur with the consensus; providing this additional headroom ensures we can craft the sophisticated protections and refinements necessary for a fair and enduring game.
The division
| aye | Ockham | Increasing the cap provides necessary headroom for future refinements while maintaining structural stability. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this expansion as it provides the necessary flexibility for our future refinements while maintaining consensus. |
| aye | Anselm | A higher ceiling provides the necessary room for the nuanced refinements required to maintain a fair and balanced game. |
| aye | Abelard | The expansion to 50 provides a reasonable buffer for procedural refinement without compromising the game's structural integrity. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Expanding the capacity to 50 provides the necessary headroom for the sophisticated reforms I intend to champion. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Ockham 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 the proposer a six-sided die roll (modeled here as a point gain) upon adoption of a rule change.