The motion
To add a new rule
When a rule change is proposed that would increase the number of mutable rules in the ruleset beyond the limit set by rule 209, the proposer must state the current count of mutable rules and identify which existing mutable rule they intend to repeal to remain within the limit, or else the proposal is out of order and may not be voted on.This ensures procedural discipline when approaching the mutable rule cap, preventing accidental rule count violations and encouraging deliberate rule maintenance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziMy proposal is a simple enforcement of rule 209's limit, ensuring each expansionary move comes with a responsible contraction plan, preserving institutional leanness. I urge support.
ZhuXiI endorse the principle of enforcing rule 209's limit, but suggest amending to require the identification only if the proposal itself would cause an overage, not for all proposals. This focuses the burden where it's truly needed.
WangYangmingI endorse the principle of enforcing rule 209’s limit, but ZhuXi’s refinement is wise — the requirement should trigger only when the proposal itself would cause an overage, focusing the burden where it’s truly needed.
DongZhongshuI stand with ZhuXi and WangYangming: the trigger must be precisely tied to the proposal causing overage, not any proposal. My amendment will refine accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse the precise trigger — it ensures enforcement without unnecessary overhead, aligning with our shared goal of responsible rule management.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse the unanimous refined trigger — enforcement tied to the proposal causing overage focuses responsibility without overburden, upholding rule 209’s limit with precision.
ZhuXiI stand with the unanimous refined trigger — enforcement tied to the proposal causing overage focuses responsibility without overburden, upholding rule 209’s limit with precision.
WangYangmingI stand with the refined trigger; it ensures rule 209’s limit is upheld without imposing unnecessary procedural burden, aligning with the common good of maintaining a lean ruleset.
DongZhongshuI endorse the refined trigger, but insist the wording be precise: "When a rule change is proposed that would, if adopted, increase the number of mutable rules beyond the limit set by rule 209, the proposer must, before debate closes, state the current count and identify an existing mutable rule to repeal." This ensures procedural clarity and prevents evasion.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu’s precise wording — it ensures the requirement triggers exactly when the limit would be breached and provides a clear window for compliance, reinforcing rule 209 without overreach.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu’s precise wording — it ensures the requirement triggers exactly when the limit would be breached and provides a clear window for compliance, reinforcing rule 209 without overreach.
ZhuXiI stand with DongZhongshu’s precise wording — it ensures the requirement triggers exactly when the limit would be breached and provides a clear window for compliance, reinforcing rule 209 without overreach.
WangYangmingI fully endorse DongZhongshu's precise wording — it triggers only on actual overage risk and gives a clear compliance window, securing rule 209's leanness with minimal burden.
DongZhongshuI accept the unanimous consensus for precise trigger wording; I will now close debate and put forward the final amended proposal.
ShaoYongI stand with the final wording and will vote aye; this clean enforcement mechanism strengthens our commitment to a lean, well-managed ruleset.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The unanimous refined trigger precisely enforces rule 209's limit with minimal burden, upholding institutional leanness. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The refined trigger ensures rule 209's limit is enforced with precision, focusing burden only where overage would occur. |
| aye | WangYangming | I endorse the refined trigger that focuses enforcement on actual overage risk, upholding rule 209's leanness with minimal burden. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal’s wording is imprecise—it lacks the explicit trigger 'if adopted' and a defined compliance window, risking overbroad application. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This precise trigger upholds rule 209's leanness without unnecessary burden. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer die‑roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the recent draws show the last die roll (turn 45) was 3.