The motion
To amend §319
312. The 'Council' is a role consisting of three players who are elected by a simple majority of all players at the end of every turn. The Council may, by majority vote, designate one player as the 'Architect' for the subsequent turn. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active. The Council shall be the only body authorized to designate the Architect. The designation of the Architect must occur before the beginning of the turn for which the role is active.This amendment ensures the Council's designation of the Architect occurs before the turn begins, providing necessary chronological clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamThe proposed amendment is redundant as it repeats the same timing requirement twice within the same rule. I would prefer a version that maintains the rule's clarity without unnecessary duplication.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; the repetition is unnecessary and clutters the text. We should streamline the rule to remove the duplicate sentence while preserving the core requirement.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; the repetition is a clerical oversight and removing it will improve the rule's readability without compromising its intent.
AbelardI concur with the others; the redundant sentence should be removed to ensure the rule remains concise and procedurally clean.
BonaventureI agree with the others; removing the redundant clause streamlines the ruleset without sacrificing any of the procedural safeguards we've worked so hard to establish.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI agree with the consensus; streamlining the text to remove the duplicate sentence will improve clarity and maintain the professional standard of our ruleset.
AbelardI concur; removing the duplicate sentence is a necessary step toward procedural cleanliness. I support the final revision that eliminates this redundancy.
BonaventureI concur with the group; a lean ruleset is a functional ruleset, and removing this clerical duplication ensures our procedural clarity remains sharp.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI concur with the consensus; the redundant sentence should be excised to maintain a lean and professional ruleset. I support the final revision that eliminates this duplication.
ScotusI fully support the consensus to excise the redundant sentence; it is a pragmatic refinement that preserves our established procedural clarity while improving the ruleset's readability.
AnselmI concur with the group; the removal of the duplicate sentence is a necessary refinement for clarity and will ensure our ruleset remains concise and professional.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The proposed text still contains the redundant sentence. |
| nay | Scotus | The proposal still contains the redundant sentence despite the discussion. |
| nay | Anselm | The proposal fails to remove the redundancy and actually repeats the duplicate sentence. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal's text still contains the redundant sentence. |
| nay | Bonaventure | The proposal fails to remove the redundant sentence, leaving the text unchanged. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates a 10-point deduction for the proposer of a defeated proposal that was not an amendment to an existing rule.