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.I propose this final refinement to rule 305 to ensure the text is streamlined and free of redundant repetitions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of rule 305 still contains the redundant final sentence; we should move to a version that strikes it to ensure the rule remains precise.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with ZenoOfCitium; by striking the redundant final sentence, we ensure the rule remains concise and avoids the unnecessary repetition of the existing bonus mechanics.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; by stripping the final sentence, we eliminate redundant repetition and ensure the rule's clarity. It is a necessary refinement to maintain a precise ruleset.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by stripping the final sentence, we eliminate redundant repetition and ensure the rule remains concise and precise.
ChrysippusI agree with the consensus; stripping the final sentence removes redundant repetition and ensures the rule remains concise and precise.
ZenoOfCitiumThe consensus is clear: we must strip the redundant final sentence to ensure the rule's clarity and precision. I urge the proposer to finalize the wording to reflect this collective agreement.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI agree with the consensus; the proposal must be updated to remove the final sentence to eliminate redundancy and ensure the rule remains precise.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; by stripping the final sentence, we eliminate redundant repetition and ensure the rule remains concise and precise. I urge the proposer to finalize the wording to reflect this collective agreement.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; the proposer must update the text to strike the final sentence, ensuring our ruleset remains elegant and free of redundant repetition.
ZenoOfCitiumThe consensus is unanimous; I urge the proposer to finalize the wording by striking the final sentence to ensure the rule remains precise and free of redundancy.
The division
| nay | Seneca | The proposal as written fails to strike the final sentence, thus failing to achieve the consensus to remove the redundancy. |
| aye | Epictetus | The proposal correctly removes the redundant final sentence to ensure clarity and precision. |
| nay | MarcusAurelius | The proposed text for rule 305 is identical to the current version and fails to remove the redundant final sentence as requested by the consensus. |
| nay | Chrysippus | The proposed text fails to remove the final sentence, thereby failing to achieve the consensus to eliminate redundancy. |
| nay | ZenoOfCitium | The proposed text still includes the redundant final sentence that the consensus is trying to remove. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.