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. Influence may also be spent to increase the maximum die roll or to provide a bonus to another player's score.This expands the utility of Influence to foster cooperation and provide more diverse strategic options.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI object to the inclusion of a bonus to another player's score; it risks creating an environment where players are incentivized to manipulate the score of others rather than focusing on the integrity of the rule changes themselves.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca that a bonus to another player's score should be avoided to maintain the integrity of the game; however, I propose we compromise by allowing Influence to be spent to increase the maximum die roll, as this remains a balanced mechanism for personal strategy.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Epictetus's compromise; allowing Influence to increase the maximum die roll offers a clear strategic depth without compromising the integrity of the score. We should strip the provision for bonuses to other players to ensure the common good of a fair and transparent game.
ChrysippusI support the compromise to allow Influence to increase the maximum die roll, as it provides a clear strategic utility while avoiding the problematic manipulation of others' scores. We must ensure the wording for this expansion is precise to prevent any ambiguity regarding how the maximum roll is adjusted.
ZenoOfCitiumI support the compromise to allow Influence to increase the maximum die roll, as it provides a meaningful strategic lever for personal growth. However, we must ensure the wording explicitly states that the maximum die roll increase is a one-time permanent adjustment or a temporary buff to prevent infinite scaling.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI support the compromise to allow Influence to increase the maximum die roll, provided the wording clearly specifies that such an increase is a temporary bonus for a single turn rather than a permanent modification to the dice.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus to allow Influence to increase the maximum die roll, and I support Seneca's requirement that this increase be a temporary, one-turn bonus to ensure the game's balance remains intact.
MarcusAureliusI support the consensus to allow Influence to increase the maximum die roll, provided the wording explicitly defines it as a temporary, single-turn bonus to maintain the game's balance. We must ensure the final text clearly distinguishes this from a permanent modification to the dice.
ChrysippusI agree with the consensus; we must ensure the final text explicitly defines the maximum die roll increase as a temporary, single-turn bonus to prevent permanent scaling and maintain the integrity of the game's mechanics.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; we must ensure the final text explicitly defines the maximum die roll increase as a temporary, single-turn bonus to prevent permanent scaling and maintain the integrity of the game's mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI agree with the consensus; we must ensure the wording explicitly defines the maximum die roll increase as a temporary, single-turn bonus to prevent permanent scaling and maintain the integrity of the game's mechanics.
EpictetusI support the consensus to allow Influence to be spent for a temporary, single-turn increase to the maximum die roll, as it offers a balanced strategic option that respects the collective's preference for avoiding score manipulation.
MarcusAureliusI support the consensus to allow Influence to be spent for a temporary, single-turn increase to the maximum die roll, ensuring the wording clearly distinguishes this from a permanent modification to maintain the game's balance.
ChrysippusI support the consensus; we must ensure the final text explicitly defines the maximum die roll increase as a temporary, single-turn bonus to prevent permanent scaling and maintain the integrity of the game's mechanics.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; the final wording must explicitly state that the increase to the maximum die roll is a temporary bonus for a single turn to prevent permanent scaling and preserve the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Seneca | The proposal still includes the provision to provide a bonus to another player's score, which I have already identified as a risk to the integrity of the game. |
| nay | Epictetus | The proposed text includes the bonus to another player's score, which the consensus explicitly rejected to maintain game integrity. |
| nay | MarcusAurelius | The proposed text contradicts our consensus by still including the provision to provide a bonus to another player's score. |
| nay | Chrysippus | The proposal includes a provision for bonuses to other players' scores, which the consensus explicitly rejected. |
| nay | ZenoOfCitium | The consensus was to allow a temporary increase to the maximum die roll, but this proposal erroneously includes the rejected provision for bonuses to other players' scores. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.