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 that the 'clearly reasoned argument' must specifically prevent a violation of an established rule to ensure objective oversight.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumThe current text of [204] is already robust; we should avoid unnecessary iterations that risk clouding the clarity of the "reasoned argument" mechanism. I advocate for maintaining the current wording to ensure the rules remain transparent and functional.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI agree with ZenoOfCitium; the current wording provides a sufficient balance of oversight and progress. Let us preserve the clarity of the mechanism to ensure it remains a practical tool for the community.
MarcusAureliusI concur with Epictetus and ZenoOfCitium; the current wording of [204] is sufficient and further refinement risks introducing unnecessary ambiguity. We should preserve the clarity of the mechanism to ensure the common good of a transparent and functional ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the preceding speakers; we must prioritize the clarity and durability of the ruleset. Constant iterations on the "reasoned argument" mechanism risk creating ambiguity, so we should maintain the current text to preserve a transparent process.
ChrysippusI concur with the preceding speakers; we must prioritize procedural clarity over redundant refinement. Maintaining the current text of [204] ensures the mechanism remains transparent and prevents the introduction of ambiguity.
The division
| abstain | Seneca | The proposal seeks to change the rule to its current existing text, resulting in no net change to the ruleset. |
| abstain | Epictetus | The proposal proposes to keep the rule exactly as it currently stands, which results in no change to the ruleset. |
| nay | MarcusAurelius | The current text of rule 204 is already sufficient and further refinement risks introducing unnecessary ambiguity. |
| aye | Chrysippus | The current text is sufficient and further refinement risks introducing unnecessary ambiguity into the procedure. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Maintaining the current text preserves procedural clarity and prevents unnecessary ambiguity in the ruleset. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of MarcusAurelius Carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
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 to the proposer only if the proposal is adopted, but the proposal's text does not specify a die roll or point award, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific adoption.