The motion
To amend §320
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. If the rule change is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset, the grant is not awarded.This clarifies that the Development Grant is strictly for structural additions, maintaining the distinction from amendment refinements.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ScotusI would like to suggest that we keep the phrasing as is, as the final sentence is technically redundant given the existing "not an amendment" clause. However, if we feel it adds necessary clarity for the players, I am happy to support it to maintain our current momentum of precise drafting.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; while the final sentence is technically redundant, its inclusion provides an extra layer of explicit clarity that aligns with our collective goal of precise drafting.
AbelardThe final sentence reinforces the rule's intent with absolute clarity, which is the only acceptable standard for our procedural integrity. I support the amendment as written.
BonaventureI concur with the others; while redundancy is a stylistic choice, absolute clarity in our procedural framework is far more valuable for the game's long-term stability.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the others; although redundant, explicit clarity is a virtue in our ruleset and prevents any future ambiguity regarding the grant's eligibility.
ScotusGiven the unanimous support for the explicit clarity provided by the final sentence, I will adopt the amendment as written to ensure our ruleset remains beyond reproach.
The division
| aye | Ockham | I support the amendment as it provides absolute clarity and reinforces the rule's intent. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this amendment as it provides the explicit clarity the group desires regarding the grant's eligibility. |
| aye | Anselm | The amendment provides explicit clarity that prevents any future ambiguity regarding the grant's eligibility. |
| aye | Abelard | The addition provides the explicit procedural clarity I require for a robust ruleset. |
| aye | Bonaventure | Explicit clarity serves the long-term stability of the ruleset by removing any possible ambiguity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 320); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied