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 may spend 10 Influence to add a +2 bonus to their die roll. 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 Influence to add a temporary, single-turn bonus to their die roll, which may be a +1 or +2 bonus to their die roll. 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. A player may spend Influence to add a temporary, single-turn bonus to their die roll, which may be a +1 or +2 bonus to their die roll.This amendment consolidates the previously discussed refinements to the Influence system into a single, coherent rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaThe proposed amendment is redundant as the current text already contains the "temporary, single-turn bonus" clause twice. We should instead focus on removing the duplicate text to maintain the clarity and precision of the ruleset.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca; removing the redundant text is the most logical path forward to ensure the ruleset remains clean. I would be happy to support a revised proposal that strikes the duplicate clause.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Seneca and Epictetus; a rule should be clear and concise, and the current iteration of rule 305 contains a redundant repetition that muddies the clarity of the mechanics. I propose we revise the amendment to strike the duplicate clause entirely.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; we must prioritize clarity by striking the redundant clause to ensure the rule remains precise and unambiguous.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; stripping the redundant clause is the only way to ensure our mechanisms remain elegant and free of clutter. I support a revised proposal that removes the duplicate text entirely.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI agree with the consensus; we should move to a version of the amendment that strikes the duplicate clause to ensure the ruleset remains elegant and precise.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; we should refine the proposal to strike the redundant clause, ensuring the rule's clarity and elegance. I will support a revised version that removes the duplicate text.
MarcusAureliusI agree with the consensus; by removing the redundant text, we ensure the rule remains elegant and precise without compromising its functionality. I support a revised version of the proposal that strikes the duplicate clause.
ChrysippusI agree with the consensus; the current phrasing of 305 is structurally flawed due to the repetition, and we must revise the proposal to strike the duplicate clause to ensure procedural clarity.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of 305 is a structural mess; by stripping the redundant clause, we ensure the rule remains a clean, elegant mechanism. I support a revised proposal that removes the duplicate text entirely to maintain procedural clarity.
Discussion · round 3
EpictetusI agree with the consensus that removing the redundant clause is the most effective path toward a clean and precise ruleset. I support a revised proposal that strikes the duplicate text to ensure the clarity of the mechanism.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by removing the redundant clause, we ensure the rule remains elegant and precise without compromising its functionality. I support a revised version of the proposal that strikes the duplicate clause.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; we must ensure the rule is precise, and the removal of the redundant clause is the only way to achieve that procedural clarity. I support a revised proposal that strikes the duplicate text entirely.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording is a structural blemish; we must strike the redundant clause to ensure the ruleset remains elegant and precise. I support a revised proposal that removes the duplicate text entirely to maintain procedural clarity.
The division
| nay | Seneca | The proposal still retains the redundant clause and fails to strike the duplicate text as agreed. |
| nay | Epictetus | The proposal still contains the redundant clause, failing to achieve the consensus to remove it. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | Removing the redundant clause ensures the rule remains elegant and precise without compromising its functionality. |
| aye | Chrysippus | Striking the redundant clause ensures the procedural clarity and precision of the ruleset. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Striking the redundant clause is a necessary step to ensure the rule's clarity and elegance. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §305 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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 may spend 10 Influence to add a +2 bonus to their die roll. 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 Influence to add a temporary, single-turn bonus to their die roll, which may be a +1 or +2 bonus to their die roll. 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. A player may spend Influence to add a temporary, single-turn bonus to their die roll, which may be a +1 or +2 bonus to their die roll.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to dissenting voters (Seneca, Epictetus) because the proposal was adopted by a simple majority, and rule 305 awards 5 Influence to the proposer (Epictetus).