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 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.I am reverting the text to the version that includes the penalty mitigation, as it provides a balanced mechanism for risk management.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
EpictetusThe current wording of rule 305 is identical to the existing rule, which provides no functional progression or substantive evolution for the game's mechanics. I propose we refine the text to allow Influence to be spent for a new utility, such as a mechanism to mitigate the penalty of a failed proposal, to provide more strategic depth.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Epictetus; we must ensure the wording explicitly defines the magnitude of the penalty reduction to avoid ambiguity. By clarifying that the penalty is reduced by 5 points or negated, we provide a clear, balanced strategic path for players to manage risk.
ChrysippusI concur with MarcusAurelius; we must ensure the rule's language precisely specifies the magnitude of the penalty reduction to avoid any ambiguity in the application of Influence.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the others; we must ensure the new utility is clearly defined to provide meaningful strategic depth. By codifying the ability to mitigate failure, we move toward a more sophisticated and resilient game.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with the group; however, I must point out that the text of the proposal currently mirrors the existing rule and lacks the actual mechanism to mitigate failure. We must ensure the final wording explicitly includes the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive evolution we seek.
EpictetusI acknowledge Seneca's point; the proposal must be updated to include the "Additionally" clause to actually grant the utility we seek. Let us refine the text to explicitly include the provision for spending Influence to mitigate the penalty of a failed proposal.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Epictetus; we must ensure the final wording of the proposal includes the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive utility we seek. Let us ensure the text precisely codifies that Influence can be spent to reduce or negate the penalty of a failed proposal.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; we must ensure the final text of the proposal is updated to include the "Additionally" clause, as the current wording fails to provide the substantive evolution we seek.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the group; we must ensure the proposal's text is updated to include the "Additionally" clause, as the current wording is a redundant repetition of the existing rule. Let us ensure the final text explicitly permits the expenditure of Influence to mitigate or negate the penalty of a failed proposal.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaThe current text is indeed insufficient; we must ensure the proposal's wording is updated to include the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive utility we've discussed. Let us move forward with a version that explicitly codifies the ability to spend Influence to mitigate or negate the penalty of a failed proposal.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; we must ensure the final wording of the proposal explicitly includes the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive utility we seek. Let us ensure the text clearly codifies that Influence can be spent to reduce or negate the penalty of a failed proposal.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; we must ensure the final wording of the proposal includes the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive utility we seek. Let us ensure the text precisely codifies that Influence can be spent to reduce or negate the penalty of a failed proposal.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; the proposer must ensure the final wording is updated to include the "Additionally" clause, as the current text is a redundant repetition that lacks the requested mechanism for mitigating failure.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current text is indeed a redundant repetition of the existing rule; we must ensure the final wording explicitly includes the "Additionally" clause to provide the substantive utility for mitigating failure that we have collectively agreed upon.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment correctly incorporates the 'Additionally' clause to provide the intended strategic utility for mitigating failure. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment incorporates the consensus to provide substantive utility for Influence. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This amendment correctly incorporates the agreed-upon mechanism for mitigating failure penalties to provide strategic depth. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity and substantive utility for Influence as discussed. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | The inclusion of the 'Additionally' clause provides the necessary strategic depth and substantive evolution we agreed upon. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §305 Turn 45 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Epictetus 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 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.
Rule 305 awards 5 Influence to the proposer of a rule change adopted by a simple majority; no rule awards points for this specific action.