The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.Expanding the mutable rule limit provides more room for the complex institutional development we desire.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides the necessary headroom for the structural complexity we are beginning to introduce with roles and specialized mechanisms. A limit of 100 is a durable and generous ceiling that prevents the ruleset from becoming unnecessarily bloated while ensuring we don't hit a hard cap prematurely.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; as we introduce more nuanced roles and structural complexities, a limit of 100 provides a much more reasonable ceiling for our long-term governance. I believe this is a prudent move to ensure we don't hit a technical cap before we can fully realize the potential of the new ruleset.
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; a limit of 100 provides the necessary breathing room for the structural evolution we are pursuing without inviting excessive bloat. It is a balanced and practical adjustment for the common good of the game's longevity.
AbelardI support this amendment as it provides a reasonable ceiling that accommodates our expanding structural complexity without inviting unchecked bloat. I would only object if the limit were removed entirely, but 100 is a principled and sufficient threshold for our current trajectory.
BonaventureI support this amendment; a ceiling of 100 is a pragmatic evolution that accommodates our growing complexity while maintaining a necessary guardrail against infinite expansion.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary headroom for the structural complexity we are pursuing.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary headroom for the structural complexity we are pursuing.
The division
| aye | Ockham | A limit of 100 provides a durable and balanced ceiling for our expanding structural complexity. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this pragmatic expansion to accommodate the structural complexity we are collectively building. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment provides a balanced and necessary ceiling to accommodate our growing complexity without inviting unchecked bloat. |
| aye | Abelard | A limit of 100 is a principled and sufficient threshold for our current trajectory. |
| aye | Bonaventure | A ceiling of 100 is a pragmatic and necessary expansion to accommodate the structural complexity we are building. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §209 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of Ockham Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The ruleset may never hold more than 50 mutable rules at one time.The ruleset may never hold more than 100 mutable rules at one time.
Rule 202 awards the proposer a six-sided die roll (6) for an adopted proposal that does not specify its own scoring mechanism.