The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.This amendment clarifies the mechanism for point awards and legal oversight during majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumI support this refinement to ensure that "clearly reasoned arguments" are grounded in the objective integrity of our established rules, preventing arbitrary interpretations of "sufficient" agreement.
Discussion · round 2
ZenoOfCitiumI believe we should clarify that "sufficient" agreement must be based on the objective text of the ruleset, ensuring that dissenting arguments are evaluated by their logical merit rather than mere consensus.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI agree with ZenoOfCitium; we must ensure that "sufficient" agreement is grounded in the objective text of the ruleset to prevent arbitrary judgments from undermining the stability of our institutions.
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium and Seneca; we should clarify that "sufficient" agreement must be based on the objective text of the ruleset to ensure that the evaluation of a dissenting argument remains grounded in logic rather than subjective preference.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; we must ensure that "sufficient" agreement is grounded in the objective text of the ruleset to ensure the evaluation of dissenting arguments remains grounded in logical merit rather than subjective preference.
ChrysippusI support the consensus; we must explicitly mandate that "sufficient" agreement be grounded in the objective text of the ruleset to prevent subjective whim from overriding procedural logic.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the collective; by mandating that "sufficient" agreement be grounded in the objective text of the ruleset, we ensure that the mechanism of oversight remains a tool for legal consistency rather than a gateway for arbitrary procedural bypass.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment anchors the judgment of 'sufficient' to the objective text of the ruleset, protecting institutional integrity from subjective whim. |
| aye | Epictetus | This refinement ensures that the evaluation of dissenting arguments remains grounded in logical merit rather than subjective preference. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | Grounding the agreement in the objective text of the ruleset ensures that oversight is governed by logic rather than subjective whim. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment ensures that the evaluation of dissenting arguments is grounded in objective logic rather than subjective whim. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Codifying that agreement must be grounded in the objective text of the ruleset prevents arbitrary interpretations and preserves the integrity of our procedural logic. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless they provide a clearly reasoned argument that prevents a violation of a specific, established rule, and the other players agree that the argument is sufficient. If a dissenting player provides such an argument and it is accepted, the proposer's turn is still successful, but the proposer does not gain points.
Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll (not provided, but the prompt implies the result of the roll is the score) plus a 1-point bonus for an amendment.