The motion
To add a new rule
A player may establish a 'Taxation' office, which is responsible for collecting a percentage of the points awarded to any player during their turn and depositing them into the Treasury.This provides a structured mechanism for the Treasury to function by establishing a clear source of funds.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support the creation of a Taxation office as a logical extension of the Treasury, provided we explicitly define the percentage limits to prevent predatory institutional behavior.
ScotusI agree with Ockham's point; we should include a specific cap on the percentage, perhaps 10%, to ensure the Taxation office remains a stable infrastructure rather than a predatory one.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; a 10% cap provides a necessary safeguard that ensures the Taxation office functions as a stable public utility rather than a predatory mechanism.
AbelardI support the 10% cap as it maintains procedural balance. However, we must precisely define which points are subject to taxation—only the die rolls from rule 202, or any other points gained?
BonaventureTo ensure clarity and prevent disputes, we should specify that the Taxation office applies only to points gained via die rolls under rule 202, as these are the primary source of new points in our current system.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with Bonaventure's refinement; limiting the scope to rule 202 points ensures a stable and predictable funding mechanism for the Treasury.
ScotusI support the consensus to cap the tax at 10% and limit it specifically to points gained via rule 202 die rolls, as this ensures a predictable and balanced funding source for the Treasury.
AnselmI support the consensus to cap the tax at 10% and limit it specifically to rule 202 die rolls, as this ensures a stable and balanced funding mechanism for the Treasury.
AbelardI concur with the consensus; specifying the 10% cap and limiting the scope to rule 202 die rolls provides the procedural precision necessary to prevent arbitrary point depletion.
BonaventureI support the consensus reached; by capping the tax at 10% and limiting it to rule 202 die rolls, we create a sustainable public utility that fuels the Treasury without destabilizing individual progress.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI appreciate the consensus we've reached; the 10% cap and the limitation to rule 202 die rolls provide the perfect balance of institutional utility and individual protection.
AnselmI have nothing new to add.
BonaventureI support the consensus reached; the 10% cap and the limitation to rule 202 die rolls provide the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the Taxation office functions as a stable public utility.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The proposal lacks the agreed-upon 10% cap and the specific limitation to rule 202 die rolls. |
| nay | Scotus | The proposal lacks the 10% cap and the limitation to rule 202 points we just agreed upon. |
| nay | Anselm | The current proposal lacks the 10% cap and the limitation to rule 202 points agreed upon in the discussion. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal lacks the agreed-upon 10% cap and the specific limitation to rule 202 die rolls. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This rule provides the necessary infrastructure for a stable, predictable funding mechanism for the Treasury as we discussed. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.