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 that many points, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.This ensures that transmutations, as required by rule 109 to be explicit, do not inadvertently award points for a non-legislative act.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it encourages the preservation of the ruleset's integrity by removing the incentive to pursue constant transmutations. It aligns with our goal of building durable institutions over high-frequency volatility.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; removing the point incentive for transmutations encourages more thoughtful deliberation over the core structure of our game. It's a sensible way to ensure our foundational changes are made for stability rather than just for immediate scoring.
AnselmI agree with my colleagues; while transmutations are vital, we should ensure they are pursued for their structural necessity rather than as a means of rapid point accumulation. This change promotes a more deliberate and stable legislative environment for the common good of the table.
AbelardI concur with the others; by decoupling transmutations from point rewards, we ensure that shifts in rule mutability are driven by procedural necessity rather than opportunistic scoring. This maintains the integrity of our procedural framework.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; separating structural transmutations from point incentives ensures that our foundational architecture is built on necessity rather than opportunism. This is a sophisticated refinement that favors long-term stability over short-term gains.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add.
ScotusI appreciate Abelard's initiative in crafting this; it perfectly aligns with our shared commitment to ensuring that structural shifts in our ruleset are motivated by genuine procedural necessity rather than a race for points. This is a prudent and stabilizing amendment that I fully support.
AbelardI have nothing new to add.
Discussion · round 3
AnselmI believe this amendment is a wise step toward ensuring that the fundamental architecture of our game remains a matter of deliberation rather than a vehicle for rapid point accumulation. It fosters a more stable and thoughtful legislative environment for everyone at the table.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment promotes institutional stability by ensuring structural transmutations are driven by necessity rather than point-seeking opportunism. |
| aye | Scotus | I fully support this amendment as it fosters a more stable and deliberative legislative environment. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment promotes a more stable legislative environment by ensuring structural transmutations are driven by necessity rather than point-seeking. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment upholds my principle of procedural integrity by ensuring structural changes are motivated by necessity rather than point-seeking. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Decoupling transmutations from point scoring promotes a more deliberate and stable legislative environment. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Abelard 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 that many points.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, unless the proposal was a transmutation, in which case the proposer gains no points.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the new text of 202 specifies no points are gained for transmutations; however, since this was an amendment and not a transmutation, the proposer would normally gain points, but no rule in the current ruleset specifies the actual die roll or point value for this specific turn's outcome beyond the text of 202 itself.