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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.This builds on the consensus from turn 8 to ensure our ruleset can explicitly define point rewards for specific actions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides the necessary clarity for complex rule changes that might define their own scoring outcomes. It ensures the ruleset remains functional and consistent when moving beyond simple die-roll rewards.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; this amendment is a vital step toward allowing for more sophisticated gameplay mechanics without creating contradictions with our current scoring rules. By providing a clear hierarchy for point allocation, we ensure that our future innovations remain both orderly and predictable.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this amendment is essential for maintaining the integrity of the ruleset as we move toward more complex structures. It provides the necessary clarity to ensure that self-contained scoring rules are honored without conflicting with the standard die-roll procedure.
AbelardI concur with the others; this amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure that specific rules can define their own outcomes without ambiguity. It is a principled refinement that maintains the integrity of our scoring mechanics.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; this amendment is a vital mechanism for structural evolution, ensuring that our innovations can define their own rewards while maintaining a clear, predictable hierarchy of scoring.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am pleased to see such a unanimous and thoughtful convergence on this refinement; it perfectly balances our need for structural evolution with the procedural clarity we have worked so hard to establish.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that rules with internal scoring mechanisms are honored consistently.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment provides essential clarity for future complex rules by establishing a clear hierarchy for point allocation. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment provides essential clarity for future rules that may define their own scoring outcomes. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment provides necessary clarity for complex scoring without compromising the core mechanics of the game. |
| aye | Abelard | The amendment provides the procedural precision necessary to resolve scoring ambiguities when rules define their own point mechanisms. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This provides the necessary flexibility to introduce nuanced rewards while maintaining procedural clarity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Scotus 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 explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism.
Rule 202 awards points based on a die roll, but the proposal's text does not provide a specific point-scoring mechanism, and no rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for this specific adoption.