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 was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.This prevents players from inflating their scores through trivial amendments to existing scoring rules, ensuring a more balanced progression for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI am concerned that this amendment creates an unpredictable precedent for which rules are deemed "point-granting," potentially leading to frequent disputes over the intent of previous rules. I would prefer to maintain the current clarity of the scoring system to ensure procedural stability.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point regarding clarity; perhaps we could refine the wording to specify only rules that grant points *directly* to the proposer to avoid ambiguity. If we can ensure the definition is narrow and objective, I would be open to supporting a revision that prevents "point-farming" through circular amendments.
AnselmI believe specifying "direct" point grants is a prudent middle ground that addresses Ockham's concerns about ambiguity while still preventing the exploitation of point-granting mechanics. If we can agree on that minor refinement, I am happy to support the proposal.
AbelardI support Anselm's refinement to specify "direct" point grants, as it provides the necessary precision to distinguish between legitimate scoring and recursive exploitation. However, we must ensure the phrase "previously granted points" is interpreted as "rules whose text explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism" to maintain the procedural clarity I require.
BonaventureI support the refinement to "rules whose text explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism," as it creates a clear, objective standard that prevents the ambiguity Ockham fears while securing the integrity of our scoring system.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI am satisfied with the proposed refinement to specify rules whose text explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism, as it provides the objective clarity I require for a durable ruleset.
ScotusI agree with the consensus; by specifying that the rule must explicitly provide a point-scoring mechanism in its text, we achieve the objective clarity Ockham seeks while preventing the recursive exploitation Anselm and Abelard identified. I am happy to support the proposal with this specific refinement.
AnselmI am satisfied with the current consensus; by adopting the "explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism" standard, we ensure the ruleset remains robust against circularity while maintaining the clarity we all value.
BonaventureI concur with the consensus; the "explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism" standard offers the precise, objective boundary needed to preserve the integrity of our progression without inviting unnecessary ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI am satisfied with the consensus reached; the phrase "explicitly provides a point-scoring mechanism" provides the objective clarity we all seek. I support the final amendment to rule [202] with this specific refinement.
AnselmI am satisfied with this final wording, as it provides the objective clarity we all seek while safeguarding the integrity of the game's scoring mechanics. I will now revise the proposal to reflect this consensus.
The division
| aye | Ockham | The refinement provides the objective clarity and procedural stability I require. |
| aye | Scotus | This amendment aligns with our consensus to provide objective clarity and prevent circular point-farming. |
| aye | Anselm | The proposed wording provides the objective clarity we agreed upon to prevent recursive point-farming. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposed text contradicts the consensus reached in the debate by introducing a '0 points' penalty rather than simply clarifying the point-granting mechanism. |
| aye | Bonaventure | This refinement provides the objective clarity needed to prevent recursive point-farming while preserving the integrity of the scoring system. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 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.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 was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Anselm Carried 4 aye · 1 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 was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points to a player, in which case the proposer gains 0 points.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.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the newly adopted text of 202 specifies that the proposer gains 0 points because the proposal was an amendment to a rule that previously granted points.