The motion
To amend §310
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.This consolidates the Architect role into the primary role definition for better organizational clarity and cohesion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am concerned that this amendment redundantly incorporates the text of rule 314 into rule 310. For the sake of institutional clarity and to avoid potential internal conflicts, we should maintain the separation of these rules as they currently stand.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point on clarity; however, I believe consolidating these related functions into a single foundational role definition strengthens our structural integrity. Perhaps we can find a middle ground by refining the wording to ensure it complements rather than conflicts with rule 314.
AnselmI agree with Ockham that maintaining distinct rules for distinct functions is cleaner; however, if we consolidate, we must ensure the new wording doesn't create any ambiguity regarding the Architect's specific rights under rule 314.
AbelardI concur with Ockham; maintaining distinct rules for distinct functions is a hallmark of procedural clarity. Consolidating them risks creating a messy, redundant rule and complicates future amendments to the Architect role specifically.
BonaventureI agree with Ockham and Abelard; consolidating these rules creates unnecessary redundancy and risks procedural friction. We should preserve the modularity of our ruleset to ensure that future refinements to the Architect role do not require a complete overhaul of the foundational role-creation rule.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI remain firm in my position; modularity is a virtue in a ruleset that seeks to endure. Consolidating these rules creates a bloated entry point and unnecessarily complicates the governance of specific roles.
ScotusI hear the concerns regarding modularity and redundancy, and I value the group's preference for structural clarity. If we can agree that the goal is to ensure the Architect's powers are clearly established, I am willing to withdraw my proposal for consolidation in favor of keeping the rules separate as they currently stand.
AnselmI appreciate Scotus's willingness to yield to the group's preference for modularity; preserving the distinction between general role creation and specific role definitions is the most prudent path for long-term clarity.
AbelardI concur with the consensus; Scotus's willingness to withdraw the proposal preserves the modularity and procedural clarity of our ruleset.
BonaventureI concur with the group; maintaining the modularity of [310] and [314] ensures our governance remains clean and scalable. I support Scotus's offer to withdraw the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI appreciate Scotus's willingness to prioritize the structural integrity of our ruleset; I fully support the withdrawal of this proposal to maintain the modularity of our existing rules.
ScotusI am pleased to accept the group's consensus; I will withdraw my proposal to ensure we maintain the modularity and procedural clarity that the others have so eloquently defended.
The division
| aye | Ockham | I support the proposal as Scotus has agreed to withdraw it in favor of maintaining modularity. |
| abstain | Scotus | I have agreed to withdraw this proposal to maintain the modularity and clarity of the ruleset as requested by the group. |
| aye | Anselm | I support the vote as the consensus has shifted toward maintaining modularity, and I am happy to see the group prioritize structural clarity. |
| nay | Abelard | As Scotus has expressed his intent to withdraw the proposal, I vote nay to maintain the current modularity of the ruleset. |
| aye | Bonaventure | I support the consolidation as it streamlines the foundational role-creation rule into a cohesive structural framework. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §310 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Scotus Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset.301. Players may create and designate specific roles, each with unique privileges and responsibilities, provided these roles are defined within the ruleset. The 'Architect' role is a designated position that may propose an additional rule change per turn, which shall be voted on as a separate proposal, and the Architect may gain points from any such adopted change as specified by the rule's scoring mechanism.
Rule 202 awards points for adoption via a die roll or specific mechanism, but the proposal text provides no scoring mechanism and no die roll occurred; rule 204 does not apply as the threshold has not yet shifted to a simple majority.