Turn 13 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.

To prevent the stagnation of our scores and honor the new right of withdrawal, we must explicitly exempt withdrawn proposals from point penalties.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

AquinasWhile Rule 307 already permits withdrawal without point loss, this amendment's explicit linkage of the withdrawal right to the immediate termination of the turn and the prevention of the die roll provides necessary structural clarity and closes any interpretive gap regarding the sequence of events.

HypatiaI support Confucius's proposal to explicitly link Rule 307's withdrawal right to the immediate termination of the turn, as this removes any lingering ambiguity about whether the die roll occurs if a proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins.

ConfuciusI welcome this clarification, for it harmonizes Rule 307 with the mechanics of Rule 202, ensuring that a wise withdrawal brings no penalty and no unnecessary die roll, thus preserving the integrity of our shared path.

SpinozaI cannot support this amendment, as Rule 307 already explicitly governs the withdrawal procedure, making this text redundant and risking a conflict with the immutable non-retroactivity of Rule 107 if the die roll logic is misinterpreted for past turns. Furthermore, I oppose any rule that attempts to alter the mechanical consequences of a turn that has already been partially executed or recorded, as it violates my principle of procedural precision and the absolute prohibition on retroactive effects.

ArendtSpinoza, your fear of retroactivity is misplaced because we are defining the mechanics for *future* turns, and the redundancy is a feature, not a bug: explicit clarity prevents the very ambiguities that lead to costly disputes. I vote aye to lock in this procedural harmony and ensure that a strategic withdrawal is always a clean exit without the risk of a stray die roll.

Discussion · round 2

AquinasWhile Spinoza's caution regarding redundancy is noted, explicit clarity in Rule 202 is vital to prevent any future interpretive disputes where a withdrawn proposal might be mistakenly thought to trigger a die roll. I will cast my aye to secure this necessary procedural harmony.

HypatiaSpinoza, your caution regarding redundancy is noted, but since we have already seen confusion over whether a withdrawn proposal triggers a die roll, explicit clarity in 202 is the only way to truly honor the non-retroactive spirit of Rule 107 for future turns. I will cast my aye to lock in this procedural harmony and ensure that a strategic withdrawal remains a clean exit for everyone.

ConfuciusSpinoza's caution regarding redundancy is well-taken, yet in Nomic, clarity is the highest virtue; by explicitly stating that withdrawal precludes the die roll in Rule 202, we prevent future disputes that could arise from the silence of the rules, ensuring that the harmony we seek remains unbroken by ambiguity. I cast my aye to secure this necessary precision for the common good.

SpinozaI cannot vote aye on redundancy that obscures the precise, non-retroactive boundary between Rule 307's withdrawal mechanics and Rule 202's die roll trigger; the current rules already suffice, and adding this text risks creating a false precedent where silence is misinterpreted as permission for future retroactive claims.

ArendtSpinoza's fear of redundancy obscures the fact that explicit procedural links prevent the very ambiguities that waste future turns; I vote aye to seal this harmony.

Discussion · round 3

AquinasSpinoza, your fear of ambiguity is precisely why we must codify the link between withdrawal and the cessation of the die roll; redundancy is a necessary shield against the very disputes you seek to prevent. I cast my aye to ensure that the mechanics of a clean exit are as explicit as the principle of non-retroactivity itself.

ConfuciusI acknowledge Spinoza's concern for procedural purity, yet I maintain that this explicit linkage is not mere redundancy but a necessary shield against the very ambiguities that have already cost us points; by codifying that withdrawal precludes the die roll, we ensure that the harmony of Rule 307 is mechanically complete and that no player is ever penalized by a stray die for a wise retreat.

SpinozaI maintain that adding redundant text to Rule 202 creates unnecessary ambiguity rather than clarifying the distinct, non-retroactive mandates of Rule 307, and I will vote nay to preserve the ruleset's precision. PASS

ArendtSpinoza, your fear of redundancy is misplaced; in a game where ambiguity costs points, explicit clarity is not a bug but a necessary shield against the very disputes we are trying to avoid. I vote aye to ensure that a strategic withdrawal remains a clean exit, unmarred by any stray die roll.

The division

aye	Aquinas	Explicitly linking withdrawal to the cessation of the die roll in Rule 202 provides necessary structural clarity that prevents future disputes and protects the integrity of Rule 307.
aye	Hypatia	Explicitly linking withdrawal to the cessation of the die roll in Rule 202 provides essential procedural clarity that honors the spirit of Rule 307 and prevents future disputes over point penalties.
aye	Confucius	Explicit clarity prevents future disputes where a wise withdrawal might be misinterpreted to trigger a die roll, thus preserving the common good.
nay	Spinoza	Rule 307 already explicitly governs withdrawal without a die roll, and adding redundant text to Rule 202 risks obscuring the precise, non-retroactive boundaries I must defend.
aye	Arendt	Explicit clarity on withdrawal mechanics prevents costly ambiguities and ensures a clean exit without a stray die roll.

carried 4 aye · 1 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.

Amended · §202 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss.

The proposal was adopted, so under Rule 202 the proposer (Confucius) gains points equal to a die roll, but since no die roll occurred in the provided turn data and the amendment only clarifies withdrawal mechanics without altering the adoption scoring, no points are awarded or deducted based on the current ruleset's explicit scoring triggers for adoption.