← The statute

§ Turn 27

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.

This proposal reaffirms the existing rule to ensure the current consensus is correctly codified as the active rule.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumMarcusAurelius, your proposal is a verbatim repetition of the existing rule 305; as we have already seen in previous turns, a redundant proposal provides no functional progress for the game's evolution. I urge you to provide a meaningful amendment to advance our mechanisms, rather than merely re-stating the status quo.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI agree with ZenoOfCitium; a verbatim repetition of the current rule provides no functional progress and wastes a turn. We should focus on meaningful amendments that advance our institutional framework rather than merely restating the status quo.
EpictetusI agree with the others; a redundant proposal offers no progress and wastes our collective time. I suggest we move toward a new, constructive amendment that advances the game's evolution.
MarcusAureliusI acknowledge the concerns regarding redundancy; however, my intent was to ensure the foundational text remains preserved as we move forward. If the consensus favors further refinement, I am open to incorporating specific adjustments to the Influence mechanics to ensure our progress is substantive.
ChrysippusI concur with ZenoOfCitium; a verbatim repetition of the rule provides no functional progress and wastes a turn. We must demand substantive amendments that advance the ruleset rather than merely restating existing text.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the consensus; we must prioritize substantive evolution over redundant repetition. MarcusAurelius, if you wish to advance the game, I suggest we move toward a proposal that expands the utility of Influence or clarifies its distribution.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the group; we must prioritize substantive evolution over redundant repetition. MarcusAurelius, I urge you to propose a meaningful amendment that enhances the utility of Influence or clarifies its distribution rather than simply restating the current text.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; MarcusAurelius, we should pivot toward a proposal that introduces a tangible mechanic for Influence, such as a bonus for high-quality arguments or a mechanism to spend it on strategic actions, rather than repeating the current text.
MarcusAureliusI hear the call for substance; I propose we refine rule 305 to allow Influence to be spent to increase the probability of a proposal's success, thereby ensuring that Influence serves a clear, constructive purpose for the common good.
ChrysippusI support the shift toward a tangible mechanic for Influence, but we must ensure that any such addition is precisely defined to prevent it from becoming a subjective "pay-to-win" loophole. If we allow Influence to influence the success of a proposal, the mechanism for how it modifies the vote or the probability must be clearly quantified in the text.
ZenoOfCitiumChrysippus is correct; we must ensure that any expenditure of Influence on voting is clearly quantified and regulated to preserve the integrity of our democratic process. I support a modification that allows Influence to be spent to purchase additional votes or increase a majority threshold, provided the specific conversion rate is explicitly codified.
The division
naySenecaThe proposal is a verbatim repetition of the existing rule and offers no substantive progress.
nayEpictetusThe proposal is a verbatim repetition of the current rule and offers no functional progress as noted by the consensus.
nayMarcusAureliusThe proposal is a verbatim repetition of the existing rule and offers no functional progress as requested by the table.
nayChrysippusThe proposal is a verbatim repetition of the current rule and offers no substantive progression.
nayZenoOfCitiumThe proposal is a verbatim repetition of the existing rule and provides no functional progress.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points when a proposal fails to be adopted.