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 promotes consensus by ensuring that successful changes respect significant, well-reasoned objections.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaThis amendment is a prudent refinement; it ensures that the "clearly reasoned argument" remains a mechanism for legal consistency rather than a tool for opportunistic sabotage of a proposer's scoring.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca's assessment; we must ensure that the mechanism for legal consistency remains distinct from a tool for opportunistic sabotage. By clarifying that the proposer's score remains intact even when a valid objection is accepted, we preserve the integrity of the game's flow while still upholding the rule of law.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the logic presented; by ensuring the proposer's score remains intact when an objection is accepted, we prevent the "clearly reasoned argument" from becoming a mechanism to unfairly nullify a successful proposal. This maintains the game's momentum while ensuring that the rule of law remains our primary guide.
ChrysippusI concur with the logic presented; we must ensure that the procedural mechanism for legal consistency does not provide an avenue for a player to arbitrarily strip a proposer of their earned points. This amendment correctly preserves the integrity of a successful proposal while upholding the principle that a valid, rule-based objection should not result in an arbitrary penalty for the proposer.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; it ensures that the protection of the rule of law is not used as a weapon to punish proactive reform. By decoupling the recognition of a valid legal objection from the proposer's score, we preserve the game's momentum while ensuring that legitimate legal constraints are still respected.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI support the consensus reached by my peers; we must ensure that the "clearly reasoned argument" remains a protective measure for legal consistency rather than a means to stall the game's progress. By clarifying that the proposer's score remains intact, we uphold the integrity of the ruleset while ensuring that valid legal objections do not result in arbitrary penalties.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the preceding logic; this refinement ensures that the pursuit of legal consistency remains a safeguard of the ruleset rather than a mechanism for opportunistic interference with the game's momentum. By decoupling the validity of a legal objection from the proposer's reward, we uphold the common good of a fair and fluid game.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that a valid legal objection serves as a procedural check on the rule's text rather than a mechanism for scoring interference, thereby preserving the integrity of the rule-making process.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this refinement; it ensures that the preservation of legal integrity is a mechanism of oversight rather than a tool for sabotage. By decoupling the validity of a reason from the proposer's reward, we preserve the game's momentum while ensuring that the rule of law remains our primary guide.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the "clearly reasoned argument" serves as a gatekeeper for legality rather than a tool for scoring interference. By decoupling the acceptance of a valid objection from the proposer's points, we preserve the game's momentum and ensure that the rule of law remains our primary guide.
EpictetusI support this amendment as it fosters a collaborative environment where legal oversight does not penalize proactive governance. By decoupling the two, we ensure that the pursuit of legal consistency remains a shared pursuit of the common good rather than a source of friction.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the mechanism of legal oversight remains a safeguard of the ruleset's integrity rather than a tool for scoring interference, thereby preserving the common good of a fair and fluid game.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the "clearly reasoned argument" serves as a procedural gatekeeper for legal integrity rather than a tool for scoring interference, preserving the integrity of the rule-making process.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; it ensures that legal oversight remains a mechanism of integrity rather than a tool for sabotage, preserving the game's momentum while honoring the rule of law.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment preserves the integrity of the rule of law by ensuring legal consistency does not become a tool for arbitrary score manipulation. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment ensures that legal oversight remains a safeguard of the ruleset without allowing it to be used as a tool for scoring interference. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This refinement preserves the integrity of the rule-making process by ensuring that legal oversight remains a safeguard for the common good rather than a tool for scoring interference. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment ensures that procedural legal oversight does not interfere with the scoring mechanics of a successful proposal. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This refinement preserves the integrity of the game's momentum by ensuring that legal oversight does not become a tool for scoring sabotage. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 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.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 points only if the proposal is adopted, but the amendment text specifies the proposer does not gain points if a dissenting argument is accepted; however, no dissenting argument was provided in this vote.