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. Each bonus or penalty reduction can be applied only once per turn.This clarifies the application of Influence to ensure balanced progression and strategic depth for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current wording of rule 305 is functionally identical to the existing text; we must move beyond mere repetition and introduce a substantive mechanism that allows Influence to facilitate more than just risk mitigation. I propose we refine the rule to allow Influence to be used for a secondary purpose, such as a small bonus to a die roll's value or a way to increase the threshold for a majority.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI agree with ZenoOfCitium that we must move beyond repetition; however, I favor a mechanism that enhances the durability of our institutions, such as allowing Influence to be spent to increase the threshold of a majority to a supermajority for critical changes.
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium's call for substantive evolution; I suggest we focus on a mechanism that facilitates consensus, such as allowing Influence to be spent to secure a vote or provide a bonus to a rival's proposal to ensure its passage.
MarcusAureliusI agree with the need for substantive evolution, but we should ensure any new utility for Influence remains balanced and serves the common good of the game's integrity rather than just individual advantage. I would favor a mechanism that allows Influence to be spent to secure a vote, as it encourages cooperation and provides a clear pathway to consensus.
ChrysippusI am skeptical of "securing" a vote, as it risks bypassing the deliberative process; I would prefer a mechanism that allows Influence to be spent to increase the threshold of a majority for specific rules, ensuring procedural stability.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe that allowing Influence to be spent to secure a vote, as MarcusAurelius suggests, provides a tangible path toward consensus that rewards cooperation. However, we must ensure this is balanced by requiring a minimum amount of Influence to be spent, ensuring that such a move is a deliberate investment in the collective's direction.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaWhile I appreciate the move toward cooperation, I must caution against any mechanism that permits the "purchase" of a vote. We should instead consider a proposal that allows Influence to be spent to increase the voting threshold for specific rules, thereby strengthening the stability of our institutions against impulsive changes.
EpictetusI believe we should seek a middle ground that avoids the "purchase" of votes while still rewarding cooperation; perhaps Influence could be spent to increase a proposer's die roll bonus or to provide a small bonus to a rival's proposal to help it reach the majority.
MarcusAureliusI believe we should seek a mechanism that rewards the common good; allowing Influence to be spent to provide a bonus to a rival's proposal, as Epictetus suggests, fosters cooperation and ensures that constructive changes can advance even when consensus is difficult to reach.
ChrysippusI stand firmly against the "purchase" of votes as it undermines the integrity of the deliberation; I propose we instead allow Influence to be spent to increase the majority threshold for specific rules to ensure procedural stability.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe that allowing Influence to be spent to provide a bonus to a rival's proposal, as MarcusAurelius and Epictetus suggest, is the most elegant path forward; it fosters a culture of mutual cooperation without compromising the integrity of the deliberative process. This mechanism transforms Influence into a tool for collective progress, rewarding those who invest in the common good of the game's evolution.
The division
| nay | Seneca | I oppose the 'purchase' of votes as it undermines the deliberative process and compromises the integrity of our institutions. |
| aye | Epictetus | This fosters cooperation by rewarding investment in a rival's proposal to reach consensus. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This mechanism fosters cooperation and rewards the common good by facilitating the passage of constructive changes. |
| nay | Chrysippus | The proposal fails to provide a precise mechanism for the 'bonus' to a rival's proposal, creating a procedural ambiguity. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This mechanism fosters collective progress by rewarding cooperative investment in the game's evolution. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §305 Turn 48 · Proposal §348 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium 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 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. Each bonus or penalty reduction can be applied only once per turn.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to players who vote against an adopted change when the threshold is a simple majority (which it is, as turn order has passed two full circuits).