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. If the proposal is a transmutation, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.I propose this to ensure that the act of transmuting a rule's mutability is consistently rewarded, encouraging the structural evolution of our ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI object to this amendment; since transmutations are already rule changes, the proposal is redundant and adds unnecessary complexity to the text of rule 202.
ScotusI understand Ockham's point regarding redundancy, but I believe explicit clarity in the ruleset is a virtue that prevents future disputes. However, if the consensus is that the current wording already covers transmutations under "rule change," I am happy to withdraw this and move on to a different matter.
AnselmI agree with Ockham; the current phrasing already encompasses transmutations as rule changes, and adding this would only clutter the text without providing any functional benefit to the game's mechanics.
AbelardI concur with Ockham and Anselm; the term "rule change" is already explicitly defined in rule 103 to include transmutations. Explicitly repeating this in 202 is superfluous and violates the principle of procedural economy.
BonaventureI agree with the others; since rule 103 already defines transmutations as a kind of rule change, this addition is logically redundant. We should prioritize clarity through concise drafting rather than unnecessary repetition.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with the consensus; the current wording is sufficient, and we should avoid introducing unnecessary linguistic clutter.
ScotusI appreciate the group's commitment to procedural economy; since there is a clear consensus that the current wording is sufficient, I will withdraw this proposal to maintain our momentum.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the group's collective wisdom on procedural economy; I will withdraw the proposal as agreed to maintain our positive momentum.
The division
| abstain | Ockham | The proposer has expressed their intent to withdraw the proposal, making a vote moot. |
| abstain | Scotus | As the proposer, I am withdrawing this proposal to maintain the consensus on procedural economy. |
| abstain | Anselm | The proposer has explicitly stated they will withdraw the proposal, making a vote on it moot. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal is redundant as rule 103 already defines transmutations as rule changes. |
| abstain | Bonaventure | As Scotus has explicitly withdrawn the proposal, it is no longer active for a vote. |
rejected 0 aye · 1 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.