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.I propose restoring the original phrasing of rule [202] to ensure consistency with rule [337] and maintain the ruleset's structural elegance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be an excellent exercise in structural purification; it removes the redundant final sentence while preserving the exact mechanics of the Community Contribution. By streamlining the text, we ensure that the rule remains both precise and elegant.
MillI agree with Hume; the final sentence is indeed redundant given the previous requirements, and this change improves the ruleset's clarity without altering any mechanics.
RawlsI concur with the previous speakers; removing the redundant sentence improves the ruleset's clarity without impacting the underlying mechanics. I support this move for the sake of structural elegance.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; structural elegance is a virtue of the state, and removing this redundancy clarifies the legislative architecture without diminishing its utility.
Discussion · round 2
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a refined legislative body must prune the overgrown thickets of redundant language to better serve the clarity of the state.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the consensus is already perfectly aligned on the necessity of this refinement. PASS
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; this amendment is a principled refinement that upholds our commitment to procedural precision by eliminating unnecessary redundancy. PASS
The division
| aye | Hume | This refinement enhances the ruleset's clarity by removing redundant language without altering the underlying mechanics. |
| aye | Mill | I support this refinement as it improves clarity by removing redundant phrasing while preserving the established mechanics. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment achieves structural elegance by removing redundancy without altering the mechanics of the game. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this principled refinement as it enhances procedural clarity by removing redundant text without altering any mechanics. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | I support this refinement to prune the legislative thicket and ensure the ruleset remains structurally elegant. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Hume 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, 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.