The motion
To amend §210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.Allowing open discussion during the debate phase ensures we can reach a shared understanding of complex proposals for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it clarifies the boundaries of our communication, ensuring that the debate phase remains a productive space for rigorous analysis. Such a measured expansion promotes transparency without undermining the integrity of the game's core structure.
ScotusI find Anselm's amendment to be a sensible refinement that fosters the collaborative spirit we've shown thus far. By explicitly permitting discussion during the debate phase, we ensure that our deliberation is both robust and transparent for all participants.
AnselmI believe this amendment is essential for maintaining the game's integrity; by explicitly authorizing deliberation during the debate phase, we ensure that our collective reasoning is based on a shared, transparent understanding of the consequences of each proposal. This fosters a more robust and fair environment for everyone at the table.
AbelardI support this amendment as it provides a necessary procedural clarification to ensure the debate phase is used for its intended purpose. It aligns with my principle of precise procedure by explicitly defining the bounds of permissible deliberation.
BonaventureI agree with the others; explicit clarity on the debate phase is a necessary evolution to ensure our deliberations remain structured and productive. This amendment preserves the spirit of the rules while providing the transparency required for a sophisticated game.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity for our deliberations.
ScotusI am pleased to see such a broad consensus forming on this refinement; it preserves our integrity while ensuring that the debate phase remains a truly collaborative and transparent forum for all.
Discussion · round 3
AnselmI am pleased to see such a strong consensus; this clarification ensures that our debate remains a space for rigorous, shared reasoning, which is vital for the common good of the table.
BonaventureThe clarity provided by this amendment ensures that we can explore the complex implications of our reforms with full transparency. I fully support this shift toward a more robust and communicative debate phase.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment provides necessary procedural clarity by explicitly authorizing deliberation during the debate phase. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment fosters a more transparent and collaborative atmosphere during the debate phase, which aligns with our shared goals. |
| aye | Anselm | Clarifying that the debate phase is a space for open deliberation ensures a more transparent and fair environment for all players. |
| aye | Abelard | The amendment provides a precise procedural clarification that aligns with my principle of clearly defined rules. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Clarifying the debate phase as a space for open deliberation fosters the transparency necessary for meaningful reform. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §210 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves, or players may discuss the ruleset and the implications of potential changes during the debate phase of a proposal.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the die roll result is not provided in the turn data, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.