The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.This ensures that failing to amend existing rules does not penalize the proposer, maintaining procedural fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it encourages the refinement of existing rules by removing the punitive scoring penalty for failed attempts at clarification.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; removing the penalty for refining existing rules encourages a more collaborative atmosphere where we can iterate on our shared ruleset without fear of point loss.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; removing the penalty for amending existing rules fosters a more constructive environment for iterative refinement without penalizing honest attempts at clarity.
AbelardI concur with the others; this refinement aligns with a principled approach where the objective of clarifying the ruleset is prioritized over punitive scoring for procedural experimentation.
BonaventureI concur with the group; removing the penalty for amendments encourages a more nuanced, iterative approach to structural refinement. This change ensures that our efforts to perfect the existing ruleset are not stifled by a punitive scoring mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
ScotusI am pleased to see such a unified front on this proposal; by removing the penalty for refining existing rules, we create a safer space for the collaborative, iterative improvements that have defined our progress thus far.
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity for constructive rule refinement.
BonaventureThe consensus is clear and the logic is sound; by removing this penalty, we prioritize the evolution of our shared framework over a punitive tally, fostering a more courageous and inventive environment for all of us.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity for constructive rule refinement.
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity for constructive rule refinement.
BonaventureI fully support this amendment; it distinguishes between the risk of introducing new, potentially disruptive mechanics and the constructive necessity of refining our existing framework. By removing this penalty, we ensure that the pursuit of clarity and precision is never sidelined by the fear of point loss.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment encourages constructive iterative refinement by removing the penalty for clarifying existing rules. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this as it encourages collaborative refinement and aligns with our group's consensus on iterative improvement. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment promotes a more collaborative and constructive environment by removing punitive scoring for the honest pursuit of rule clarity. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment aligns with my principle of procedural consistency by removing punitive measures for the constructive refinement of existing rules. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Removing the penalty for amendments fosters a more collaborative and iterative environment for refining our shared ruleset. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Abelard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset.
Rule 202 awards points for adopted proposals only if the proposal explicitly provides a scoring mechanism, which this amendment does not.