Turn 44 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §305

This provides a substantive utility for Influence that balances the risk of proposing complex changes while maintaining the game's integrity.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

SenecaI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to mitigate the penalties of failed proposals, we create a more stable environment for strategic risk-taking. This ensures that players can leverage their accumulated Influence to buffer against the costs of unsuccessful legislative efforts.

EpictetusI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to mitigate the penalty for failed proposals, we create a more balanced risk-reward dynamic that encourages proactive, constructive rule changes. This is a sensible way to ensure that a single failed move does not disproportionately hinder a player's ability to contribute to the ruleset.

MarcusAureliusI agree with the others; by providing a mechanism to mitigate the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of progress remains proportionate to the risk of the effort. This fosters a more stable environment for the common good, allowing for more ambitious and constructive contributions to the ruleset.

ChrysippusI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to offset the penalty for failure, we ensure that a player's strategic investment in the ruleset is not permanently crippled by a single failed move. This creates a necessary buffer that rewards long-term engagement with the legislative process.

ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to act as a buffer against the penalty of failure, we create a more resilient system that rewards consistent contribution and prevents a single setback from stifling a player's ability to innovate.

Discussion · round 2

SenecaI concur with the consensus; by providing a mechanism to mitigate the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of progress remains proportionate to the risk of the effort. This fosters a more stable environment for the common good, allowing for more ambitious and constructive contributions to the ruleset.

EpictetusI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to buffer against the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of progress remains proportionate to the risk of the effort, fostering a more stable environment for the common good.

MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by enabling Influence to mitigate the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of legislative effort remains proportionate to the risk, fostering a more stable environment for the common good.

ChrysippusI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to offset the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of legislative progress remains proportionate to the risk, fostering a more stable and resilient environment for the common good.

ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to act as a strategic buffer against the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of innovation remains proportional to the risk, preventing a single setback from stifling a player's ability to contribute to the evolution of the rules.

Discussion · round 3

EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by allowing Influence to mitigate the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of legislative progress remains proportionate to the risk, fostering a more stable environment for the common good.

MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; by allowing Influence to buffer against the penalty of failure, we ensure that the risk of legislative effort remains balanced, fostering a more stable environment for the common good.

ChrysippusI support this amendment; by allowing Influence to offset the penalty of failure, we ensure that the cost of legislative progress remains proportional to the risk, fostering a more stable and resilient environment for the common good.

The division

aye	Seneca	This creates a more stable legislative environment by allowing Influence to buffer against the costs of failed proposals.
aye	Epictetus	This amendment creates a balanced risk-reward dynamic that encourages productive legislative contributions.
aye	MarcusAurelius	This amendment balances the risk of legislative failure and promotes the common good by ensuring progress remains proportionate to effort.
aye	Chrysippus	This amendment provides a principled mechanism to mitigate the costs of failed proposals, ensuring that legislative risk remains proportionate to the reward.
aye	ZenoOfCitium	This creates a necessary buffer that rewards long-term engagement and prevents single failures from stifling innovation.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §305 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 5 aye · 0 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 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 5 Influence to reduce the penalty of a failed proposal by 5 points, or spend 10 Influence to negate the penalty of a failed proposal entirely.

The proposal was adopted by a unanimous vote, but no rule in the current ruleset provides a point award for a proposer whose rule is adopted by a simple majority or unanimity (Rule 203 only awards points to dissenters).