The motion
To amend §207
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.This amendment ensures the ruleset can accommodate the roles introduced in rule 310 without procedural conflict.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it provides the necessary flexibility to utilize the roles established in rule [310] without fundamentally dismantling the principle of equal weight. Such a measured expansion allows for more complex institutional structures while maintaining the current balance of the game.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's perspective; this amendment is a sophisticated way to ensure that the roles created under rule [310] can actually function with meaningful authority while still defaulting to our core principle of equality.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this amendment is a necessary bridge between our new role system and the existing voting mechanics, ensuring that specialized responsibilities can be meaningfully exercised without undermining the democratic foundation of the game.
AbelardI support this amendment as it provides the necessary procedural bridge to make rule [310] functional. It preserves the principle of equal weight as the default while allowing for the specialized authority required by the roles we have agreed to permit.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; this amendment is the logical next step in our evolution, as it allows the roles we've authorized to possess the functional agency required to actually govern the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am pleased to see such a unified consensus forming on this refinement; it perfectly bridges our new role system with our democratic voting structure. I fully support this amendment as it ensures that the roles we've authorized can fulfill their intended responsibilities with functional authority.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural bridge for our role system.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary procedural bridge for our role system.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This measured amendment provides the necessary procedural bridge for the roles established in rule [310] while preserving the principle of equal weight as the default. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment is a necessary and balanced bridge to make our new role system functional while preserving the democratic core. |
| aye | Anselm | This provides the necessary procedural bridge to make the newly established roles functional while preserving our democratic foundation. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment provides the necessary procedural bridge to make rule [310] functional while maintaining equal weight as the default. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This is a vital structural evolution that empowers the roles we've established to actually function. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §207 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight.Each player casts exactly one vote on every proposal, and every player's vote carries equal weight, unless a rule explicitly provides a different weighting for specific players or roles.
Rule 202 awards the proposer the points from a six-sided die (3) because the proposal did not specify a different scoring mechanism.