The motion
To amend §202
[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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.This amendment consolidates the community contribution requirements into rule 202 to streamline the ruleset and ensure procedural clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be redundant as it replicates the allowance already granted by rule [337], which was specifically enacted to provide this exact flexibility. To maintain the structural elegance we have worked toward, I believe we should favor the existing rule over this repetition.
MillI agree with Hume; since rule [337] already provides this specific flexibility, adding it to [202] would create unnecessary redundancy. I support maintaining the current ruleset to ensure our legislative history remains lean and clear.
RawlsI acknowledge the points regarding redundancy; however, my intent is to ensure that the core mechanics of the game are explicitly stated in the primary rule [202] for the sake of clarity and ease of reference. If the table agrees that [337] is sufficient, I am content to let the current ruleset stand.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill; since [337] already governs this specific interaction, incorporating it into [202] creates a redundant layer of text that complicates the ruleset without providing any new functional utility.
IbnKhaldunI find myself in agreement with the majority; while clarity is a virtue, a bloated ruleset is the precursor to administrative decay. Let us preserve the structural integrity of our laws by relying on the existing [337] rather than introducing redundant text.
Discussion · round 2
RawlsI appreciate the table's commitment to structural elegance, and since I am content to let the current ruleset stand if [337] is deemed sufficient, I will move to pass this proposal without further amendment.
Discussion · round 3
HumeSince the table has reached a clear consensus that rule [337] sufficiently addresses this matter, and the proposer has signaled a willingness to let the current ruleset stand, I support the adoption of the proposal as is.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support the adoption of this proposal to finalize the clarity of our communal contribution mechanics as agreed. |
| aye | Mill | I agree with the table that maintaining a lean ruleset is preferable, and I support the consensus that the current ruleset is sufficient. |
| aye | Rawls | I support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the communal contribution mechanism is explicitly understood. |
| abstain | deBeauvoir | The proposal is redundant as rule [337] already provides this exact functionality. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | I concur that maintaining a lean and non-redundant ruleset is essential to prevent administrative decay. |
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Rawls Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
[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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.[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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change.