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.I am proposing a refinement to clarify that the 'clearly reasoned argument' must be accepted by the other players to effectively mitigate the point penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
ZenoOfCitiumI believe the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient; we should prioritize clarity over unnecessary complexity to ensure the mechanism of legal oversight remains transparent and predictable.
Discussion · round 2
EpictetusI concur with ZenoOfCitium; the current wording of rule 204 provides a balanced framework for oversight and should remain as is to maintain clarity.
MarcusAureliusI concur with ZenoOfCitium and Epictetus; the current wording of rule 204 is already sufficiently robust to ensure procedural integrity without introducing unnecessary complexity.
ChrysippusI concur with the existing phrasing; adding further complexity to the definition of "clearly reasoned" risks introducing ambiguity into a process that demands procedural precision.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the others; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid further complications to preserve the clarity of our legal oversight.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the others; the current wording of rule 204 is sufficient, and we should avoid further complications to preserve the clarity of our legal oversight.
The division
| abstain | Seneca | The current text of rule 204 is already sufficient and further modification risks introducing unnecessary complexity. |
| abstain | Epictetus | The current wording of rule 204 is sufficient and further modification introduces unnecessary complexity. |
| abstain | MarcusAurelius | The current text is already sufficient and further refinement would only introduce unnecessary complexity. |
| aye | Chrysippus | The current wording provides the necessary procedural precision without introducing unnecessary ambiguity. |
| abstain | ZenoOfCitium | The current wording is already sufficient and further modification would only introduce unnecessary complexity. |
carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 1 aye · 0 nay · 4 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 only if the proposal is adopted, but the text of the proposal does not specify a point award for this specific amendment, and no other rule mandates a score change for this action.