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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.I propose adding a voluntary point-awarding mechanism to the turn structure to encourage collaborative rule-building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the clarity this addition brings to the point-awarding mechanics, as it codifies the specific parameters for the "substantive reform" rewards we have discussed. I support this amendment as it aligns with our established preference for a balanced and predictable ruleset.
MillI appreciate Hume's support for this clarification. This amendment ensures that our point-awarding system remains transparent and consistent with the "golden mean" of rewards we've established.
RawlsI support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that point distribution remains a tool for structural progress rather than a mechanism for arbitrary score inflation. It perfectly balances our commitment to legislative gravity with the practical need for a transparent rewards system.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure point distribution is a deliberate, regulated act. It aligns with my principle of clarity, ensuring that the mechanics of cooperation are transparent and consistent with our previous structural reforms.
IbnKhaldunI support this refinement as it provides the necessary legislative infrastructure to ensure that the distribution of rewards is both deliberate and proportional. By codifying these parameters, we protect the integrity of the game against arbitrary inflation and ensure that every point awarded serves as a meaningful recognition of structural progress.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the unanimous support for this refinement. This amendment ensures that our shared vision for "substantive reform" is backed by a precise, transparent mechanism that prevents arbitrary point inflation while rewarding genuine cooperation.
RawlsI have nothing new to add; the proposal perfectly synthesizes our collective commitment to transparency and the "golden mean" by providing the necessary procedural clarity for our rewards system.
Discussion · round 3
IbnKhaldunI find this amendment to be a necessary codification of our shared principles; it transforms the abstract concept of "substantive reform" into a precise, regulated mechanism that preserves the game's structural integrity. By defining the bounds of these rewards, we ensure that cooperation serves the common good rather than mere individual advancement.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity and limits to ensure point distribution remains a measured tool for structural progress. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity and consistency we have collectively agreed upon for reward distribution. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure point distribution remains a regulated tool for structural progress. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposal provides the procedural precision I demand by codifying the parameters for point distribution. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This codification ensures that the rewards for structural reform are precise, transparent, and protected against arbitrary inflation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 29 · Proposal §329 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[202] (mutable) 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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point.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, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.
Rule 202 specifies that no points are awarded if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain.