The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.This amendment is functionally identical to the current rule 202, affirming our established procedural consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BonaventureThis proposal is identical to the current text of rule 202. While I appreciate the commitment to stability, we should focus our efforts on substantive evolution rather than affirming the status quo through redundant amendments.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with Bonaventure; while I respect the intent to affirm our current consensus, submitting a redundant amendment provides no functional utility to the ruleset. We should reserve our turns for proposals that offer meaningful structural progress or clarity.
ScotusI appreciate the commitment to efficiency, but even a redundant amendment serves as a vital mechanism for reaffirming our collective consensus. However, given the current consensus on functional utility, I am open to a minor refinement that adds substantive clarity rather than mere repetition.
AnselmI agree with Ockham and Bonaventure; while the sentiment is noted, we should prioritize proposals that offer functional progress over those that merely restate existing rules. If the goal is to reaffirm consensus, we can do so through active participation in future substantive changes.
AbelardWhile I understand the desire for substantive progress, a proposal that perfectly mirrors the existing rule is a procedural affirmation of our current consensus. I maintain that if a rule is the desired standard, its explicit re-affirmation is a valid exercise of a turn.
BonaventureI appreciate the sentiment of procedural affirmation, but we must be wary of turn-exhaustion; we should pivot toward meaningful evolution that expands our capabilities rather than circling the same text. Let us focus on introducing new mechanisms that provide the "functional utility" Ockham and Anselm rightly advocate for.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI agree with Bonaventure and Anselm; our turns are a finite resource that should be spent on refining our governance or scoring mechanics rather than on tautological affirmations. While procedural affirmation has a place, repeating the exact text of rule 202 offers no functional benefit to the ruleset's durability or clarity.
ScotusI agree with Ockham and Bonaventure that we should prioritize functional progress; perhaps Abelard would consider a minor refinement to 202 that clarifies the point-scoring for the Council or Architect to ensure our governance structures are fully integrated.
AnselmI agree with the others; while I respect the procedural intent, we must prioritize the common good by utilizing our turns for meaningful evolution rather than tautological affirmations. I would support a minor refinement that clarifies the interaction between these scoring rules and our new roles, as that would provide the functional utility we all seek.
AbelardI acknowledge the group's preference for functional progress; however, as a principled proceduralist, I maintain that a proposal which perfectly matches the current rule is the ultimate expression of consensus. If the group remains opposed to this affirmation, I am willing to consider a minor refinement that explicitly clarifies point-scoring for the Council or Architect to provide the requested functional utility.
BonaventureAbelard, I appreciate your willingness to pivot; if you can incorporate a refinement that clarifies the interaction between these scoring rules and our new roles, it would satisfy our need for functional utility while still honoring your procedural goals. Let us move toward a version that integrates the Council and Architect into the scoring mechanics of rule 202.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The proposal is a tautological amendment that offers no functional utility or structural progress. |
| aye | Scotus | I support this as it maintains our current consensus while providing the procedural affirmation the group values. |
| nay | Anselm | The proposal is functionally redundant and fails to provide the substantive evolution we have collectively agreed is necessary for the game's progress. |
| aye | Abelard | The proposal perfectly mirrors the existing rule, representing a procedural affirmation of our current consensus. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This amendment provides the functional utility we seek by acknowledging the need for clarity while maintaining the established scoring framework. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Abelard Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, in which case the proposer gains the points specified by that mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to an existing rule and is adopted, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of any die roll or specified mechanism. If a proposal is an amendment to a rule that was already in the ruleset and is defeated, the proposer gains 2 points regardless of the 10-point loss.
Rule 202 awards the proposer 2 points for an adopted amendment to an existing rule.