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 receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. If the point distribution is specified and the change does increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25, the point award is nullified.This clarification ensures the point cap is strictly enforced even when a specific point distribution is included in a proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment as it provides necessary clarity regarding the interaction between point rewards and the capacity limit of the ruleset. This ensures that the incentive for dissent remains tethered to the preservation of the system's structural integrity.
EpictetusI concur with Seneca's support; this amendment provides the necessary clarity to ensure that we do not over-incentivize expansion at the cost of the ruleset's structural capacity. It is a sensible refinement that maintains the balance of the system.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the expansion of the ruleset remains a deliberate act of moderation rather than a consequence of uncoordinated incentives. It protects the common good by preventing the rule count from exceeding our structural limits.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure that point incentives do not inadvertently breach the structural limit of the ruleset. We must ensure that the capacity of the system remains a hard constraint, regardless of the incentives offered for dissent.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the incentive for dissent remains a tool for refinement rather than an incentive for reckless expansion. By enforcing the 25-rule cap as a hard constraint on point distribution, we preserve the system's integrity while still rewarding the courage of dissent.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI support this amendment; it ensures that the pursuit of points does not create a loophole to bypass the structural limit of the ruleset. By nullifying the award for over-expansion, we protect the system's integrity while maintaining the incentive for reasoned dissent.
EpictetusI agree with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary clarity to ensure that the structural limit of the ruleset remains a firm boundary, preventing the incentive for dissent from being used to bypass the 25-rule cap.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the structural integrity of the ruleset remains paramount, preventing the incentive for dissent from being leveraged to circumvent the established capacity limits.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the structural limit of the ruleset remains an absolute constraint. We must ensure that incentive structures cannot be used to circumvent the 25-rule cap, preserving the system's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the 25-rule cap remains an absolute structural constraint that cannot be bypassed via incentive manipulation. We must ensure that the integrity of the system's capacity remains a hard limit regardless of the point distribution.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment reinforces structural integrity by ensuring point incentives cannot be used to circumvent the 25-rule capacity limit. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment preserves the structural integrity of the system by ensuring the 25-rule cap remains an absolute constraint. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This amendment preserves the structural integrity of the system by ensuring that point incentives cannot be used to circumvent the 25-rule capacity limit. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment ensures that incentive structures cannot circumvent the structural capacity limit of the ruleset. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This amendment preserves the integrity of our structural limits by preventing incentive manipulation from bypassing the 25-rule cap. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25.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 receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. If the point distribution is specified and the change does increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25, the point award is nullified.
Amended · §204 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 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 receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. If the point distribution is specified and the change does increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25, the point award is nullified.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 receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25.
Rule 202 awards the proposer the die roll (not provided, but the prompt implies the result of the roll is the score change) plus 5 points for a unanimous 'aye' vote; however, since the die roll is not provided in the prompt, I must look for other scoring rules. Wait, the prompt says 'the proposer rolls a six-sided die', but the roll result is not provided. Looking at the prompt again, the score_deltas for Epictetus should be the die roll + 5. Since the die roll is missing, I cannot calculate the exact score. However, looking at the prompt's 'REASONING' instructions, I must follow the rules. Rule 202 says 'receives points equal to the roll, plus an additional 5 points if the proposal was a unanimous "aye" vote'. Since the roll is not provided, I cannot determine the score. Wait, I see 'die -> 2' in the recent turns, but that's for a previous turn. I will assume the die roll is not provided and thus cannot be calculated, but I must provide a value. Actually, looking at the prompt, there is no die roll provided for this turn. I will check if any other rule applies. No other rule applies. I will set score_deltas to {} because the roll is missing.