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's Influence total is capped at 20.I propose adding an explicit cap to the Influence currency to prevent runaway accumulation and ensure balanced play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment as it establishes a necessary ceiling on Influence, preventing any single player from accumulating an overwhelming advantage that would undermine the game's balance.
EpictetusI support Seneca's point; a cap on Influence ensures that the currency remains a tool for strategic leverage rather than an insurmountable accumulation of power. By capping the total at 20, we preserve the competitive integrity of the game for all participants.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the preceding arguments; a cap on Influence is a prudent measure to ensure that the currency serves as a balanced mechanism for strategy rather than a means of creating an insurmountable monopoly. Establishing a ceiling of 20 preserves the common good by ensuring the game remains a contest of reason and skill for everyone at the table.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because a cap on Influence is a necessary procedural safeguard; without a ceiling, the currency risks becoming an unbounded resource that creates an insurmountable advantage, violating the principle of balanced competition.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with my colleagues; a ceiling of 20 prevents the currency from becoming a permanent monopoly, ensuring that Influence remains a dynamic tool for strategic evolution rather than a static source of absolute dominance. This cap preserves the game's fluidity by ensuring every player maintains a viable path to victory.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; a cap of 20 ensures that Influence remains a manageable tool of strategy rather than an unchecked accumulation of power. This amendment preserves the game's equilibrium by preventing any one player from achieving an insurmountable advantage.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because a defined limit is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure the currency remains a strategic tool rather than an unbounded resource. This cap ensures the game's integrity by preventing the accumulation of an insurmountable advantage.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment because a cap of 20 ensures that Influence remains a catalyst for meaningful reform rather than a tool for permanent hegemony. By limiting accumulation, we ensure that every player retains the opportunity to shape the game's evolution.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI reiterate my support for this amendment; a cap is essential for the stability of our institutions, ensuring that Influence remains a tool for progress rather than a mechanism for permanent dominance.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; establishing a cap of 20 ensures that Influence remains a tool for strategic navigation rather than a source of absolute dominion. This amendment preserves the balance of our common interest by ensuring the game remains a test of reason for all.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; a cap of 20 ensures that Influence remains a balanced instrument of strategy rather than a tool for absolute monopoly. This amendment preserves the common good by ensuring the game remains a fair contest of reason for all participants.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe this cap is a masterstroke of equilibrium; by preventing a monopoly on Influence, we ensure that the power to reform remains distributed, allowing for a more dynamic and inclusive evolution of our rules.
The division
| aye | Seneca | A cap on Influence preserves the integrity of our institutions by preventing the consolidation of unchecked power. |
| aye | Epictetus | A cap on Influence ensures the currency remains a tool for strategic leverage rather than an insurmountable accumulation of power. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | A cap on Influence preserves the common good by ensuring no single player can achieve an insurmountable monopoly on the game's evolution. |
| aye | Chrysippus | A ceiling on Influence is a necessary procedural safeguard to ensure the currency remains a balanced strategic tool rather than an unbounded resource. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | A cap of 20 ensures Influence remains a tool for dynamic reform rather than a source of permanent hegemony. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §305 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 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 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's Influence total is capped at 20.
Rule 305 awards 5 Influence to the proposer of a rule change adopted by a simple majority; the proposal was adopted by a unanimous majority (5/5).