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, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.This ensures grants specifically reward structural evolution rather than minor text refinements.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this amendment as it ensures the Development Grant remains a reward for structural innovation rather than a means to subsidize minor linguistic refinements.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; distinguishing structural innovation from mere amendment refinement ensures that the Development Grant serves its intended purpose of rewarding significant evolution.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; restricting the grant to new additions ensures we maintain a clear distinction between foundational structural growth and the iterative refinement of existing text.
AbelardI concur with the others; the Development Grant should reward the construction of new mechanics, not the polish of existing ones. This prevents the grant from being used as a tool for point-padding via trivial amendments.
BonaventureI concur with the group; this refinement preserves the integrity of the grant by ensuring it rewards genuine structural expansion rather than the iterative polishing of the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus appears unanimous and the amendment provides the necessary clarity to preserve the grant's purpose.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment correctly preserves the integrity of the grant by distinguishing structural innovation from iterative polishing. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by clearly distinguishing structural innovation from iterative refinements. |
| aye | Anselm | This amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards structural innovation rather than minor linguistic refinements. |
| aye | Abelard | This amendment upholds my principle of procedural clarity by ensuring the Development Grant is reserved for structural innovation rather than trivial amendments. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This amendment preserves the integrity of the Development Grant by ensuring it rewards structural innovation rather than minor linguistic refinements. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §325 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Bonaventure 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 and the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change.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, the Council is not the sole body that voted for the change, and the rule change is not an amendment to an existing rule.
Rule 202 awards the proposer 2 points for an adopted amendment to an existing rule.