The motion
To amend §325
320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.This ensures that the Council cannot unilaterally reward their own members or specific allies by being the sole supporters of a proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it prevents the Council from rubber-stamping grants for their own members or for proposals they essentially dictated. This refinement ensures that the Development Grant remains a reward for genuine, independent contribution to the ruleset's evolution.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; ensuring that the Council cannot reward proposals they alone validated preserves the integrity of these grants as incentives for broader consensus.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this prevents the Council from using their majority to manufacture rewards for proposals that lack broader support, ensuring the grants remain a true meritocracy.
AbelardI concur with the group; this prevents the Council from manufacturing artificial merit for proposals that lack independent support. It preserves the procedural integrity of the grant as a reward for genuine consensus.
BonaventureI fully concur; this amendment is a vital safeguard against the concentration of power, ensuring that development grants remain a reward for genuine progress rather than a tool for internal Council favoritism.
Discussion · round 2
AnselmI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary safeguard to ensure the grants remain a reward for genuine, broad-based progress.
Discussion · round 3
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary safeguard to ensure the grants remain a reward for genuine, broad-based progress.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment provides a necessary safeguard against the Council manufacturing rewards for proposals that lack broader consensus. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment strengthens the integrity of the grant system by ensuring it rewards broad consensus rather than narrow interests. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment provides a crucial safeguard by ensuring grants are rewarded for broad consensus rather than just Council approval. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment enforces the principle of genuine consensus by ensuring grants are not awarded for rules forced through by a Council majority. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This amendment strengthens the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards broad-based consensus rather than narrow Council interests. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §325 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Scotus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal.320. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Development Grant' of 5 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which introduces a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight, provided that the rule change was not proposed by a member of the Council at the time of the proposal and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless the proposal provides its own mechanism; this proposal provides no scoring mechanism, but rule 202 requires a die roll which is not performed here, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.