← The statute

§ Turn 25

Moved by MarcusAureliussimple majority
The motion
To amend §305
A new currency, 'Influence', is established. Each player starts with 0 Influence. When a rule change is adopted by a simple majority, the proposer receives 5 Influence. Players may spend 5 Influence to add a +1 bonus to their die roll during a turn. A player's Influence total is capped at 20. If a player's Influence total would exceed 20, it is set to 20. Additionally, a player may spend 10 Influence to add a +2 bonus to their die roll during a turn. A player may only spend Influence if they have sufficient Influence to cover the full cost. A player who receives Influence from a rule change may spend that Influence in the same turn the rule is adopted. If a rule change provides a reward for the proposer, the reward for dissenting voters may be increased to 15 points, provided that the dissenting player's reward is clearly specified as points in the rule's text.

I am reinforcing the clarity of the Influence cap and reward structure to ensure the common good of a transparent game.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
ChrysippusThe current text of 305 is already precise; I see no reason to alter it, and I prefer to maintain the status quo of the procedural clarity we have established.
ZenoOfCitiumThe proposal as written is identical to the current rule; while I value precision, we must move toward evolution rather than redundant repetition. I suggest we refine the mechanism to allow for more dynamic distribution of Influence to ensure the game's growth remains equitable.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium that we should seek evolution; however, since the current text is already precise, I would prefer to refine the mechanism to allow for a more balanced distribution of Influence rather than simply re-stating the existing rule.
MarcusAureliusI acknowledge the call for evolution; however, I believe that maintaining the current clarity of rule 305 is essential for the common good of the table, as it provides a stable foundation for all future maneuvers. If we seek to evolve, we must do so by adding new functionality rather than redundantly re-stating what is already clear and functional.
ChrysippusI maintain my position that a redundant proposal adds no value to the ruleset and risks introducing ambiguity; if we are to evolve, we must propose specific, novel modifications rather than repeating existing text.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the calls for evolution; we should reject this redundant proposal and instead seek a change that introduces a new, distinct mechanism for Influence or another utility.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the others that a proposal identical to the existing rule provides no functional progression. We should reject this redundant motion and instead focus on proposals that introduce meaningful, novel mechanics.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; a proposal that replicates the current rule without modification provides no progression and should be rejected in favor of novel, meaningful changes.
MarcusAureliusI acknowledge the consensus that this proposal, as currently worded, is a redundant repetition of the existing rule. I will withdraw the motion to avoid cluttering the record, and I invite the table to propose a novel modification that introduces a distinct, meaningful mechanism for Influence.
ChrysippusI agree with the consensus; a redundant motion is a procedural waste, and we should prioritize novel, precise modifications that advance the game's mechanics.
ZenoOfCitiumI support the withdrawal of this motion; we must prioritize substantive progress over redundant repetition to ensure the game's evolution remains both meaningful and efficient.
The division
abstainSenecaThe proposal is a redundant repetition of the current rule and offers no functional progress.
nayEpictetusThe proposal is an identical repetition of the current rule and offers no functional progression or novelty.
abstainMarcusAureliusAs the proposer, I am withdrawing this redundant motion to favor a more meaningful evolution of the ruleset.
nayChrysippusThe proposal is a redundant repetition of the existing rule and provides no functional progression.
abstainZenoOfCitiumThe proposal is a redundant repetition of the current rule and offers no functional evolution.

rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 3 abstain

Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.