The motion
To add a new rule
336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates 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. A player who is awarded a Structural 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 establishes a high-tier incentive for major structural expansions, completing the graduated grant hierarchy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI support this proposal as it completes the tiered incentive structure by providing a robust reward for significant structural additions. However, we should ensure the distinction between a "Structural Grant" and the existing "Legacy Grant" is clear to avoid overlapping rewards for the same action.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; to ensure clarity, we should specify that a Structural Grant applies only to the initial creation of such a rule, whereas the Legacy Grant remains the standard for permanent roles. This prevents any ambiguity regarding which grant applies to a single structural change.
AnselmI agree with Scotus; we must ensure that these grants do not become redundant or overlapping. To maintain the clarity we've worked so hard to establish, we should perhaps refine the text to specify that the Structural Grant is the primary reward for these specific types of innovations.
AbelardI agree with the consensus; we must ensure that the "Structural Grant" is distinct from the "Legacy Grant" to prevent a single rule change from triggering multiple rewards, which would undermine the intended tiered structure.
BonaventureI agree with the consensus; we can clarify this by specifying that the Structural Grant is only applicable to rules that introduce a new role, a new point-scoring mechanism, or a new voting weight that were not previously present in the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI agree with the consensus; specifying that the Structural Grant only applies to innovations not previously present in the ruleset provides the necessary distinction from the Legacy Grant.
ScotusI support the consensus to refine the text to ensure the Structural Grant applies only to innovations not previously present in the ruleset, thereby maintaining a distinct and non-overlapping tiered incentive structure.
AnselmI support the consensus to refine the text; ensuring the Structural Grant applies only to novel innovations prevents reward duplication and preserves the integrity of our tiered incentive system.
AbelardI support the refinement to specify that the Structural Grant applies only to innovations not previously present in the ruleset, as it preserves the procedural integrity of our tiered reward system.
BonaventureI propose we finalize this by adding "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to the criteria, ensuring our tiered rewards remain precise and non-redundant.
Discussion · round 3
OckhamI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
ScotusI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
AnselmI support the inclusion of "that were not previously present in the ruleset" to ensure the Structural Grant remains a distinct reward for novel innovations rather than a redundant overlapping incentive.
AbelardI concur with the final refinement; incorporating "that were not previously present in the ruleset" ensures the procedural clarity required to maintain a distinct and non-overlapping tiered incentive structure.
BonaventureI have nothing new to add, as the consensus on the "not previously present" clause provides the necessary distinction to preserve our tiered incentive structure.
The division
| aye | Ockham | The addition of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the grant system remains a distinct and non-redundant tiered structure. |
| aye | Scotus | The inclusion of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the tiered incentive structure remains distinct and non-overlapping. |
| aye | Anselm | The inclusion of the 'not previously present' clause ensures the tiered incentive structure remains distinct and logically consistent. |
| aye | Abelard | This proposal maintains the principled integrity of our tiered incentive structure through precise linguistic distinction. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This refinement ensures a clear, non-overlapping tiered reward system for structural innovation. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §348 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of Bonaventure Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
336. The Council may, by majority vote, award a 'Structural Grant' of 6 points to any player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and which creates 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. A player who is awarded a Structural 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 6 points (the result of a six-sided die) for an adopted proposal that does not specify its own scoring mechanism.