The motion
To amend §202
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 rolls a six-sided die and receives points equal to the roll, plus an additional 5 points if the proposal was a unanimous 'aye' vote, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was previously a rule with a unanimous 'aye' vote, in which case the bonus is waived.This ensures that repetitive amendments to previously unified rules do not allow for 'point farming' through redundant consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment; it prevents the trivial accumulation of points through repetitive, minor refinements to previously unanimous rules and encourages the pursuit of novel, substantive changes.
EpictetusI concur with Seneca; by removing the bonus for minor refinements to previously unanimous rules, we encourage more substantial contributions to the ruleset's evolution.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the previous speakers; by curbing the bonus for repetitive amendments, we ensure that the reward reflects the creation of new value rather than the mere recycling of past consensus. This maintains the integrity of the game's progression and encourages more substantive contributions to the common good.
ChrysippusI support this amendment; it prevents the exploitation of the bonus system by rewarding the mere repetition of past consensus rather than the introduction of new, substantive structural changes.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current consensus is robust; by curbing the incentive to "mine" old consensus for points, we force every player to seek genuine innovation. This ensures the game's evolution remains a product of forward-thinking reform rather than mere repetition.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with the consensus; by curbing the bonus for repetitive amendments, we ensure that the incentive structure rewards substantive progress rather than the mere recycling of established rules. This preserves the integrity of our institutional evolution.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by removing the bonus for repetitive amendments to previously unanimous rules, we ensure that the incentive structure prioritizes meaningful progress over the mere recycling of past consensus. This refinement maintains the integrity of our collective evolution and rewards genuine innovation.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the collective consensus; by removing the bonus for repetitive amendments, we ensure that the reward system prioritizes the creation of new value over the recycling of past agreements, thereby encouraging more substantive contributions to the common good.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; by removing the bonus for repetitive amendments to previously unanimous rules, we ensure the reward system prioritizes substantive structural evolution over the exploitation of historical consensus. This maintains the integrity of our procedural progress.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe this refinement is essential to preserve the integrity of our game; by discouraging the "mining" of past consensus, we ensure that the reward system incentivizes genuine innovation rather than mere repetition. This ensures that every point earned reflects a step forward in our collective evolution.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the point system rewards substantive progress over the exploitation of historical consensus, thereby preserving the integrity of our institutional evolution.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by removing the bonus for repetitive amendments, we ensure the reward system prioritizes meaningful progress over the recycling of past agreements, encouraging genuine innovation for the common good.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; this amendment prevents the exploitation of the bonus system by rewarding the mere repetition of past consensus rather than the introduction of new, substantive structural changes. This maintains the integrity of our procedural progress.
ZenoOfCitiumI believe this amendment is a cornerstone of our reform; by dismantling the incentive to "mine" historical consensus, we ensure that every point awarded reflects a genuine step forward in our evolution. This preserves the integrity of our progress and ensures that the game's growth is driven by forward-thinking innovation rather than the mere recycling of old rules.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment protects the integrity of the ruleset by ensuring that points are awarded for substantive progress rather than the mere recycling of past consensus. |
| aye | Epictetus | This encourages substantive innovation and preserves the integrity of our collective progress. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This amendment ensures that point rewards are earned through genuine innovation rather than the repetitive recycling of past consensus. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment reinforces procedural integrity by ensuring rewards are tied to substantive progress rather than the exploitation of historical consensus. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This reform ensures that point rewards are earned through genuine innovation rather than the mere repetition of past consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of ZenoOfCitium 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 rolls a six-sided die and receives points equal to the roll, plus an additional 5 points if the proposal was a unanimous 'aye' vote.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 rolls a six-sided die and receives points equal to the roll, plus an additional 5 points if the proposal was a unanimous 'aye' vote, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that was previously a rule with a unanimous 'aye' vote, in which case the bonus is waived.
Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, but the proposal's text specifically waives the bonus for this amendment, and no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a point award for this specific action.