The motion
To add a new rule
330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.This ensures that grants are distributed more broadly among the players rather than being concentrated on a few individuals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it prevents any single player from monopolizing the benefits of the grant system and ensures the rewards are distributed more equitably across the table.
ScotusI support Ockham's sentiment; this rule ensures that the Council's rewards foster broad engagement rather than concentrating points among a few favored players.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Scotus; this rule ensures the grant system remains a tool for broad development rather than a means for point concentration. It promotes a more balanced game state for the common good of the table.
AbelardI support this proposal; it is a principled restriction on point accumulation that prevents the grant system from becoming a mechanism for a single player to achieve a runaway lead.
BonaventureI concur with the others; by ensuring that the grants serve as a one-time catalyst for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy, we preserve the integrity of the reward system and encourage a diverse range of contributions from all players.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
ScotusI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus reflects a shared commitment to equitable point distribution and the long-term health of the grant system.
The division
| aye | Ockham | This amendment ensures the grant system promotes broad innovation rather than concentrating points in a single player's hands. |
| aye | Scotus | This rule promotes equitable distribution and prevents any single player from monopolizing the grant system. |
| aye | Anselm | This rule ensures the grant system remains a balanced incentive for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy for a single player. |
| aye | Abelard | This proposal aligns with my principle of preventing runaway leads by ensuring grants serve as catalysts rather than recurring subsidies. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This ensures the grant system functions as an incentive for innovation rather than a recurring subsidy for a single player. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.
Repealed · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Anselm Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
330. A player who is awarded a Development Grant or a Research Grant by the Council may not be eligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the game.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer of an adopted amendment, and since 330 is a new rule, it is not an amendment; however, the prompt states 330 was adopted as a new rule, but rule 202 awards 2 points for amendments. Wait, 330 is a new rule, so it follows the standard scoring: the proposer (Anselm) gains points from a die roll or a specified mechanism. Since no mechanism is specified in 330, and no die roll is provided in the prompt, no points are awarded. Re-evaluating: Rule 202 says 'unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism'. 330 does not. No die roll is provided. Therefore, no points are awarded.