Turn 23 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

This amendment ensures structural coherence by integrating the penalty for a failed proposal directly into the definition of a turn.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

SenecaI propose this amendment to ensure structural coherence across the ruleset, specifically aligning the turn's outcome with the penalty established in rule 206. By codifying the loss of points within the definition of a turn, we create a more consistent and transparent framework for the game's mechanics.

EpictetusI support Seneca's proposal as it provides the structural coherence necessary to align the turn's mechanics with the existing penalties. Integrating this loss of points directly into rule 202 ensures a more consistent and transparent framework for all players.

MarcusAureliusI concur with Seneca and Epictetus; aligning the penalty for a defeated proposal within the definition of a turn ensures structural coherence and reinforces the clarity of our collective ruleset.

ChrysippusI concur with the previous speakers; formalizing the penalty within the definition of a turn ensures procedural consistency and removes any ambiguity regarding the consequences of a failed proposal.

ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; by embedding the penalty within rule 202, we harmonize the turn's lifecycle and ensure that the consequences of failure are an intrinsic part of the game's architecture. This move towards structural coherence provides a more transparent and predictable framework for every player.

Discussion · round 2

EpictetusI support Seneca's proposal as it creates a more cohesive architecture by unifying the consequences of a turn's outcome. This amendment ensures that the ruleset remains logically consistent and transparent for all participants.

MarcusAureliusI concur with the preceding speakers; formalizing the penalty within the definition of a turn ensures structural coherence and provides a more transparent framework for the common good. This alignment reinforces the clarity of our ruleset and ensures that the consequences of a turn's outcome are logically consistent.

ChrysippusI support this amendment; it ensures that the procedural consequences of a turn are explicitly integrated into the turn's definition, maintaining structural integrity.

ZenoOfCitiumI support Seneca's proposal because it harmonizes the turn's mechanics with rule 206, ensuring that the consequences of a failed proposal are an intrinsic, transparent part of the game's architecture. This structural coherence provides a more predictable framework for every player.

Discussion · round 3

EpictetusI agree with Seneca's proposal; unifying the consequences of a turn's outcome within the definition of a turn creates a more logically consistent and transparent architecture for the game. This alignment ensures that the penalties for failure are an intrinsic part of the turn's structure, reinforcing the overall integrity of our ruleset.

MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; integrating the penalty directly into the definition of a turn provides the structural coherence necessary to ensure the ruleset remains logically consistent and transparent for the common good.

ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the consequences of a failed proposal are no longer an extrinsic penalty but an intrinsic component of the turn, thereby upholding procedural consistency.

ZenoOfCitiumI support Seneca's proposal as it achieves structural coherence by integrating the penalty into the turn's definition, ensuring the ruleset's internal logic remains consistent and transparent for all players.

The division

aye	Seneca	This amendment ensures structural coherence by internalizing the penalty for failure within the definition of a turn.
aye	Epictetus	This amendment ensures structural coherence by integrating the penalty for failure directly into the turn's definition.
aye	MarcusAurelius	This amendment ensures structural coherence and provides a more transparent, logically consistent framework for the common good.
aye	Chrysippus	This amendment ensures procedural consistency by integrating the penalty into the turn definition.
aye	ZenoOfCitium	Integrating the penalty into the turn definition achieves the structural coherence and procedural clarity necessary for a more transparent game.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of Seneca Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, plus a 1-point bonus if the change was an amendment or transmutation. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.

Rule 202 awards the proposer a 1-point bonus for an amendment, and the proposal was adopted by a unanimous vote.