The motion
To add a new rule
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.Establishing a framework for roles allows for more sophisticated organizational structures and specialized responsibilities.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamWhile the creation of roles could provide structure, I am concerned that this adds significant complexity without a clear mechanical benefit. I would prefer to see a more specific definition of how these privileges would be granted or balanced before supporting such a broad addition.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's diligence regarding complexity; perhaps we could refine the proposal to specify that roles must be defined by their impact on voting or scoring to ensure they serve a clear mechanical purpose.
AnselmI agree with Scotus that roles should have a clear mechanical purpose; however, we should ensure that any such roles do not undermine the fundamental principle of equal voting weight established in rule 210.
AbelardI am concerned that "unique privileges" is insufficiently defined and could lead to procedural instability. If this rule passes, it must explicitly state that roles cannot override the immutable protections of the 100s or the core voting equality of rule 207.
BonaventureI believe establishing roles is a vital evolutionary step for Nomic; by defining specific responsibilities, we can create a more sophisticated governance structure that moves beyond simple individual turns. I am open to refining the text to ensure these roles complement, rather than conflict with, our core voting equality.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with Abelard that "unique privileges" is dangerously vague; we must ensure any role-based privileges are explicitly limited to non-voting mechanical actions to preserve the integrity of our core governance.
ScotusI support the group's direction of refining the rule to ensure roles are limited to non-voting mechanical actions, as this preserves our core equality while allowing for the structural evolution Bonaventure envisions.
AnselmI support the consensus to restrict roles to non-voting mechanical actions, as this allows for structural innovation while safeguarding the foundational equality of our voting process.
AbelardI concur with the consensus to restrict roles to non-voting mechanical actions. To ensure procedural clarity, the final wording must explicitly state that such roles cannot grant any rights to bypass rules or modify the turn order.
BonaventureI accept the group's consensus; I will revise the proposal to specify that roles are limited to non-voting mechanical actions and cannot bypass rules or modify turn order. This ensures we achieve structural evolution while preserving the foundational integrity of our governance.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support the revised wording as it provides a controlled path for structural evolution while maintaining the essential equality of our voting process.
ScotusI am pleased to see the group converge on such a precise refinement; this wording successfully balances Bonaventure's vision for structural evolution with the necessary safeguards for our procedural integrity.
AnselmI support the revised wording as it provides a clear path for organizational structure while ensuring that the core equality of our voting process remains inviolable.
AbelardI support the final wording as it provides the necessary limitations to ensure that role-based privileges do not erode the procedural clarity and voting equality that are foundational to this game.
BonaventureI am pleased to see this consensus; the revised wording successfully balances our need for structural evolution with the essential protections of our core voting equality.
The division
| aye | Ockham | The refined wording provides a controlled path for structural evolution while maintaining our core voting equality. |
| aye | Scotus | The refined wording successfully balances structural evolution with our core voting equality. |
| aye | Anselm | The revised wording successfully balances structural evolution with the necessary safeguards for our procedural integrity. |
| aye | Abelard | The refined wording provides the necessary procedural safeguards to preserve voting equality and rule integrity. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This refinement provides a structured path for organizational evolution while strictly preserving our foundational voting equality. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the current turn order has not yet completed two full circuits, meaning the threshold is still unanimous (Rule 203) and no points are awarded for a unanimous vote.