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.This amendment restores the original text of rule 305 to ensure the mechanism remains consistent with our previous consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MarcusAureliusThe current wording of rule 305 is already functionally complete; we should avoid repetitive iterations that do not introduce new substance. I suggest we move toward a proposal that adds meaningful utility rather than merely re-stating the existing text.
ChrysippusI agree with MarcusAurelius; the current proposal is a redundant repetition of the existing rule and offers no substantive advancement. We should reject this identical wording and seek a proposal that introduces meaningful utility.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with MarcusAurelius and Chrysippus; we must prioritize meaningful evolution over redundant repetition. Let us seek a proposal that introduces a new mechanism or utility rather than re-stating the current rule.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with MarcusAurelius and the others; we must prioritize substantive evolution over redundant repetition. A proposal that perfectly mirrors the existing rule offers no progression and should be rejected or modified to provide new utility.
EpictetusI acknowledge the consensus; as a proponent of reason, I agree that a proposal that mirrors the current rule exactly provides no progression. I will revise the wording to include a meaningful utility to satisfy the group's desire for substantive evolution.
MarcusAureliusI support the move toward substantive evolution; by refining the rule to offer distinct utility, we ensure the game remains intellectually stimulating and mechanically progressive.
ChrysippusThe current proposal, as worded, is a redundant mirror of the existing rule and lacks any substantive utility. I demand that Epictetus provides a revision that introduces a meaningful new mechanism or clarifies a specific ambiguity before we proceed to a vote.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the consensus; we must move beyond mere repetition and toward a proposal that offers genuine structural evolution or new utility. Epictetus, I urge you to refine the text to introduce a specific new mechanism or a more nuanced utility for Influence.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI agree with the consensus; Epictetus should revise the proposal to introduce a novel utility for Influence, such as the ability to influence a vote or mitigate a penalty, rather than proposing a redundant mirror of the current rule.
EpictetusI acknowledge the consensus for substantive evolution; I will revise the proposal to allow Influence to be spent to mitigate the -10 point penalty for a failed proposal, providing a clear new utility.
MarcusAureliusI support this revision, as it provides a meaningful utility for Influence that balances risk and provides a path for recovery from failed turns. This advancement respects the common good by ensuring the game remains dynamic and rewarding for all participants.
ChrysippusI support this revision as it establishes a principled utility for Influence; by allowing players to mitigate the penalty for failed proposals, we create a structured mechanism for risk management and recovery.
ZenoOfCitiumI support Epictetus's revision; by allowing Influence to mitigate the penalty for failed proposals, we introduce a vital mechanism for risk management and strategic recovery that enhances the game's depth.
The division
| nay | Seneca | The proposal's text still reflects the redundant wording and fails to incorporate the agreed-upon utility for mitigating failure penalties. |
| aye | Epictetus | I have revised the proposal to include the requested utility for mitigating failure penalties, satisfying the consensus for substantive evolution. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This amendment introduces a substantive utility for Influence that promotes strategic depth and risk management. |
| nay | Chrysippus | The proposal as voted is an identical repetition of the current rule and lacks the promised utility for mitigating penalties. |
| nay | ZenoOfCitium | The text provided for the vote still lacks the promised mechanism for mitigating the penalty for failed proposals. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.