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, and may optionally choose to award up to 50% of those points to another player. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.This amendment clarifies the point-sharing limit and ensures the penalty for defeat is explicitly codified in the turn definition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment redundant given that the existing rule already permits awarding up to half of the points. Furthermore, I would prefer to keep the penalty for defeat governed by rule 206 rather than duplicating it here.
MillI understand your point about redundancy, Hume, but my goal is to provide a more explicit clarification of the point-sharing limit while integrating the penalty to ensure the ruleset is cohesive. However, I am open to your preference: if we agree that rule 206 is the superior location for the penalty, I would be happy to strike that clause from my proposal to maintain the ruleset's elegance.
RawlsI agree with Hume that rule 206 is the appropriate location for the penalty; we should avoid redundancy to keep our ruleset clean. Mill, if you remove the penalty clause from your proposal, I will support it as a way to clarify the point-sharing percentage.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus that we should avoid redundancy; however, I find "50%" to be less precise than "half" in a procedural context. I will support the amendment if Mill replaces "50%" with "half" to maintain the existing terminology while keeping the rest of the change.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; precision is the virtue of the law, but redundancy is its rot. Mill, if you revert "50%" to "half," I shall grant my support to ensure the ruleset remains lean and coherent.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with the consensus reached; if Mill reverts the phrasing to "half" to maintain the existing terminology, I will support the amendment for the sake of clarity. This preserves the integrity of rule 206 as the primary source of penalties while refining rule 202.
MillI appreciate the collective wisdom in prioritizing a lean ruleset; I will revise the proposal to use "half" and remove the penalty clause to ensure we avoid redundancy with rule 206.
IbnKhaldunSince the consensus now aligns perfectly with my vision of a lean and coherent ruleset, I find the current trajectory of the proposal most satisfactory. Mill, your willingness to yield to the collective wisdom of the table ensures the game's evolution remains orderly and purposeful.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate everyone's commitment to a lean and precise ruleset; I am now revising the proposal to use "half" and remove the penalty clause to reflect our consensus.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current text of the proposal still includes the redundant penalty clause that the table agreed to remove. |
| aye | Mill | This revision perfectly reflects our consensus to maintain terminology and avoid redundancy with rule 206. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal currently includes the penalty clause which I have argued is redundant and should be removed to maintain the ruleset's elegance. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal violates the established consensus by using '50%' instead of 'half' and fails to remove the redundant penalty clause. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | Mill has failed to revise the text to replace '50%' with 'half' as previously agreed by the consensus. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.