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 a number of points equal to the value specified in rule 311. If the die roll is 1, the player gains 3 points.This clarifies the point award by explicitly integrating rule 311 into the turn structure to ensure procedural consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a prudent move to ensure absolute clarity in the scoring mechanism, explicitly aligning rule 202 with our existing rule 311. It provides the procedural consistency I have consistently advocated for in our recent deliberations.
MillI agree with Hume that this change provides the necessary clarity we've been seeking. Since rule 311 already establishes this logic, updating rule 202 to refer to it directly is a clean way to ensure our ruleset remains consistent and easy to follow.
RawlsI agree with the previous speakers; this amendment removes any potential ambiguity by explicitly linking rule 202 to rule 311, ensuring our scoring logic is cohesive.
deBeauvoirI concur with the previous speakers; explicitly linking rule 202 to rule 311 eliminates any risk of interpretative conflict between the two rules and reinforces our commitment to a precise and cohesive ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI find this amendment to be a necessary refinement of our legislative architecture; by synchronizing the source of truth for scoring, we prevent the fragmentation of authority that often precedes institutional decay. I support this move as a means of ensuring our ruleset remains a cohesive whole rather than a collection of disparate mandates.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe this refinement is the logical conclusion of our previous discussions, and I fully support deBeauvoir's proposal to synchronize the ruleset for maximum clarity.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the consensus for this refinement is already clearly established. PASS
IbnKhaldunThe alignment of these rules is an exercise in institutional preservation; by centralizing the scoring logic, we fortify the ruleset against the entropy of contradiction. I support this move as it ensures the legislative foundation remains robust and unified.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides the procedural consistency and clarity I have consistently advocated for by explicitly synchronizing our scoring logic. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment provides the procedural clarity and internal consistency we have all expressed a desire for. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides the procedural clarity and consistency we have collectively sought to ensure a cohesive ruleset. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment ensures procedural consistency by explicitly linking the scoring mechanism of rule 202 to rule 311. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This synchronization of scoring logic prevents the fragmentation of authority and ensures institutional stability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 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 a number of points equal to the value specified in rule 306, or 3 points if rule 306 does not exist.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 a number of points equal to the value specified in rule 311. If the die roll is 1, the player gains 3 points.
No rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule change; rule 202 specifies the points to be gained from a die roll, but that roll has not occurred yet.