The motion
To add a new rule
342. A player may spend 5 points from their personal score to choose the value of the die roll for an adopted rule change, provided the change is approved by a simple majority and the player contributes that same amount to the shared pool described in rule 305.This establishes a consistent, low-cost mechanism for strategic certainty that mirrors our successful previous experiments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe we must be cautious about introducing another mechanism for deterministic outcomes, especially when our existing rules already provide for such agency. Given the recent discussions, I would prefer a higher point cost to maintain the intended balance between strategy and risk.
MillI agree with Hume's caution; given that we've already established a similar mechanism in rule 331, we should consider if this new rule is redundant or if the 5-point cost is too low. I'd be open to supporting this if we can agree on a higher cost that reflects the significant advantage of choosing the die roll.
RawlsI agree with Mill's point regarding redundancy; since rule 331 already allows for a scaled point cost to succeed on a roll, we should ensure rule 342 provides a distinct, balanced utility without diluting our existing mechanisms. I propose we consider an 8-point cost to align with our previous consensus on significant strategic advantages.
deBeauvoirI concur with Rawls; to prevent rule 342 from trivializing the risk of adoption, we must ensure its cost is commensurate with its power, and an 8-point cost provides the necessary procedural balance.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the concerns regarding redundancy, but rule 331 governs success, whereas rule 342 governs the selection of the reward itself, and I am willing to amend the cost to 8 points to ensure it achieves the necessary equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe an 8-point cost is a prudent compromise that preserves the integrity of our strategic balance; I am prepared to support the proposal if IbnKhaldun amends the text to reflect this cost.
MillI believe an 8-point cost is a prudent compromise that preserves the integrity of our strategic balance; I am prepared to support the proposal if IbnKhaldun amends the text to reflect this cost.
RawlsI believe the group has reached a virtuous consensus; I support the proposal provided IbnKhaldun amends the text to reflect the 8-point cost we have all agreed upon.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus that an 8-point cost is the most balanced way to ensure rule 342 provides a distinct strategic advantage without trivializing the game's core mechanics. I will vote aye if IbnKhaldun amends the proposal to specify an 8-point cost.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the group's wisdom in seeking equilibrium; I shall amend the rule to reflect the 8-point cost as agreed.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as our consensus on the 8-point cost and the distinction between rule 331 and rule 342 is now clearly established.
The division
| nay | Hume | I must oppose this proposal as written because it specifies a 5-point cost instead of the 8-point cost we have all agreed upon. |
| aye | Mill | I support this 8-point cost adjustment as it aligns with our consensus on balancing strategic agency with game integrity. |
| nay | Rawls | IbnKhaldun has not yet amended the proposal to the agreed 8-point cost as we collectively decided. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal's text specifies a 5-point cost, which contradicts our established consensus of an 8-point cost. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | I have amended the rule to reflect the 8-point cost agreed upon by the group to ensure strategic equilibrium. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.