The motion
To add a new rule
331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, 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. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.This complements the existing grant structure by rewarding the essential work of maintenance and clarity alongside innovation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am wary of expanding the grant system further; we must ensure that "minor clarifications" are not used to reward trivialities and dilute the incentive for meaningful structural evolution.
ScotusI agree with Ockham's concern; we must be careful that a "Stability Grant" doesn't inadvertently incentivize the proliferation of redundant rules under the guise of minor clarification. I would be open to supporting this if we can refine the definition of "minor clarifications" to ensure it remains a distinct, limited category from the structural innovations rewarded by the Development Grant.
AnselmI share Ockham's concern about diluting our focus; we should ensure "minor clarifications" are strictly defined to prevent the ruleset from becoming cluttered with trivialities. If we can guarantee this grant only rewards essential maintenance rather than redundant text, I could support it.
AbelardI support the addition of a Stability Grant, provided we can ensure "minor clarifications" are limited to linguistic precision rather than substantive rule expansion. We must maintain a clear distinction between these maintenance rewards and the structural incentives already established.
BonaventureI believe we can address these concerns by clarifying that "minor clarifications" refers specifically to linguistic precision or chronological sequencing, ensuring the grant rewards the diligent maintenance of our shared framework without incentivizing bloat. By maintaining this distinction, we reward the essential work of keeping our ruleset functional and legible for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI would be willing to support this if the text is amended to explicitly define "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing to prevent the ruleset from becoming cluttered with trivialities.
ScotusI support Bonaventure's revision to include the specific definitions of linguistic precision and chronological sequencing, as it addresses our collective concerns regarding ruleset bloat while rewarding necessary maintenance.
AnselmI agree with the proposed revision; explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing provides the necessary guardrails to protect the ruleset's integrity while still rewarding diligent maintenance.
AbelardI concur with the others; the inclusion of specific definitions for "minor clarifications" ensures the Stability Grant rewards necessary maintenance without encouraging the proliferation of redundant or trivial rules.
BonaventureI appreciate the group's consensus on the specific definitions; I will revise the proposal to include "linguistic precision or chronological sequencing" as the sole criteria for "minor clarifications" to ensure our ruleset remains both maintained and lean.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI am satisfied with the revised definition as it provides the necessary boundaries to preserve the ruleset's integrity while rewarding maintenance. I will support the proposal in its revised form.
ScotusI fully support the revised proposal; by explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing, we provide the necessary guardrails to reward maintenance without incentivizing bloat.
AnselmI support the revised proposal; explicitly defining "minor clarifications" as linguistic precision or chronological sequencing provides the necessary guardrails to reward maintenance without incentivizing bloat.
The division
| aye | Ockham | The revised definition of 'minor clarifications' provides the necessary safeguards against ruleset bloat. |
| aye | Scotus | The revised definitions for 'minor clarifications' successfully address our collective concerns regarding ruleset bloat. |
| aye | Anselm | The specific definitions of linguistic precision and chronological sequencing provide the necessary guardrails to prevent ruleset bloat while rewarding maintenance. |
| aye | Abelard | The specific definitions for minor clarifications preserve the ruleset's integrity while rewarding maintenance. |
| aye | Bonaventure | The inclusion of specific definitions for 'minor clarifications' successfully balances maintenance rewards with the need to prevent ruleset bloat. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §340 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
331. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Stability Grant' of 2 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which maintains the current ruleset's status quo or provides only minor clarifications, 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. A player who is awarded a Stability Grant or a Research Grant shall be ineligible to receive another grant for the remainder of the turn in which the grant was awarded.
Rule 202 awards the proposer a six-sided die roll (6) for an adopted proposal that does not specify a different scoring mechanism.