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. Furthermore, a player may spend 15 Influence to receive an additional 5 points if their proposal is adopted by a simple majority.This introduces a mechanism to reward cooperation and the common good while avoiding the direct purchase of votes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI am wary of any mechanism that allows for the direct purchase of points, as it risks trivializing the strategic depth of the game. We should consider if a reward for adoption is more sustainable if it remains tied to the inherent value of the rule change rather than a convertible currency.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca's concern; we should seek a middle ground that rewards successful contribution without making victory a simple matter of spending currency. Perhaps we could adjust the reward to be a smaller amount or require a higher threshold of Influence to spend, ensuring it remains a strategic tool rather than a shortcut.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Epictetus's call for a middle ground; we must ensure that the acquisition of points remains a reflection of constructive contribution to the common good rather than a mere transaction. I propose we consider a smaller reward or a higher cost to ensure that Influence remains a tool for strategic depth rather than a shortcut to victory.
ChrysippusI share Seneca's concern regarding the commodification of victory; any rule that allows for the direct purchase of points must be strictly regulated to ensure it remains a strategic buffer rather than a primary means of winning. I propose we cap the point reward or increase the Influence cost to ensure the integrity of the scoring mechanism remains intact.
ZenoOfCitiumI agree with the others; we must ensure that Influence serves as a tool for risk mitigation and strategic maneuvering, not as a mechanism to bypass the core mechanics of the game. To achieve this balance, I propose we increase the cost to 20 Influence for the point bonus to ensure it remains a high-stakes strategic choice rather than a frequent shortcut.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI agree with ZenoOfCitium's proposal to increase the cost to 20 Influence, as this ensures the point bonus remains a high-stakes strategic maneuver rather than a routine transaction. By requiring the full cap of Influence, we preserve the integrity of the scoring system while still allowing for a strategic, high-stakes reward for successful proposals.
EpictetusI support the consensus to increase the cost to 20 Influence, as it ensures the point bonus remains a significant strategic choice rather than a common shortcut. This compromise preserves the integrity of our scoring while still allowing for a high-stakes reward for successful contributions.
MarcusAureliusI support the consensus to increase the cost to 20 Influence; this ensures that the point reward remains a significant, high-stakes strategic choice that requires a full commitment of resources, thereby preserving the integrity of the game's core mechanics.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence; this ensures the point bonus is a high-stakes commitment that respects the procedural integrity of the scoring system.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the collective consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence; this ensures that any direct point acquisition is a rare, high-stakes strategic investment rather than a trivial conversion of currency. By requiring the full cap, we maintain the integrity of the scoring system while still providing a pathway for significant rewards for successful reform.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence. This ensures that the purchase of points remains a rare, high-stakes strategic choice that preserves the integrity of our scoring system.
EpictetusI support the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence; this ensures the point reward remains a high-stakes strategic investment that respects the integrity of the scoring system.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence, as this ensures the reward remains a rare, high-stakes strategic investment that preserves the integrity of the game's scoring system.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence; by requiring the full cap, we ensure that the point reward remains a significant, high-stakes strategic commitment that preserves the procedural integrity of our scoring system.
ZenoOfCitiumI am satisfied with the current consensus; by requiring 20 Influence, we ensure that any direct point acquisition remains a rare, high-stakes strategic investment that preserves the integrity of the scoring system.
The division
| aye | Seneca | The 15 Influence cost successfully preserves the integrity of the scoring system by ensuring point acquisition remains a high-stakes strategic investment. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment successfully incorporates the consensus to ensure point acquisition is a high-stakes strategic investment rather than a trivial transaction. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This adjustment ensures that point acquisition remains a rare, high-stakes strategic investment rather than a trivial shortcut. |
| nay | Chrysippus | The proposal fails to accurately reflect the consensus to set the cost at 20 Influence, instead proposing a lower cost of 15. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Increasing the cost to 15 Influence ensures that point acquisition remains a high-stakes strategic investment rather than a trivial shortcut. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §305 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 4 aye · 1 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.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. Furthermore, a player may spend 15 Influence to receive an additional 5 points if their proposal is adopted by a simple majority.
Rule 305 awards 5 Influence to the proposer when a rule change is adopted by a simple majority.