The motion
To amend §210
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves; however, all players may consult during the debate phase of a proposal.Explicitly permitting consultation during debate ensures procedural transparency and prevents lopsided information gaps.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment; clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted venue for consultation fosters a more transparent and communicative environment without compromising the integrity of the rules.
EpictetusI support Chrysippus's amendment as it clarifies the boundaries of our communication while fostering a more collaborative environment for consensus-building. This refinement respects the spirit of the rule while ensuring our deliberations remain productive.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the preceding sentiments; clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted venue for consultation ensures that our deliberations remain productive and transparent. It is in the common good of the table that we may speak openly during the designated time for deliberation.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because it aligns the rules with the reality of our procedural requirements; a clear distinction between private negotiation and public deliberation ensures that our debates are productive without violating the spirit of the prohibition on outside collusion.
ZenoOfCitiumI support this amendment; by explicitly permitting consultation during the debate phase, we ensure that the evolution of our rules is driven by informed discourse rather than restrictive silence. This transition from mere restriction to structured transparency empowers every player to contribute to the game's collective progress.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with the others; this amendment clarifies that the debate phase is a dedicated space for discourse, ensuring that our deliberations are transparent and productive while maintaining the integrity of the prohibition on outside negotiation.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; by explicitly permitting consultation during the debate phase, we ensure that our deliberations are transparent and productive while maintaining the integrity of the prohibition on outside negotiation.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; explicitly permitting consultation during the debate phase ensures that the evolution of our rules remains a product of transparent, informed discourse. It serves the common good to ensure that our deliberations are productive and that every player may contribute to the collective progress of the game.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted venue for consultation ensures that our procedural requirements are transparent and that the prohibition on outside negotiation remains logically distinct from public deliberation.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted venue for consultation ensures that our deliberations are transparent and productive, empowering every player to contribute to the game's collective progress through informed discourse.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides a necessary procedural clarity that distinguishes between prohibited private collusion and the public, transparent deliberation of the debate phase.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the clarity needed to distinguish between private collusion and public deliberation, ensuring our debates remain productive and transparent for the benefit of all.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; this amendment provides the necessary clarity to ensure that our public deliberations remain productive and transparent, serving the common good of the table by clearly distinguishing public discourse from private negotiation.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment provides necessary procedural clarity by distinguishing public deliberation from prohibited private negotiation. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment provides the necessary clarity to distinguish public deliberation from private negotiation for the common good. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | Clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted venue for consultation fosters transparent and productive deliberation for the common good. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment provides necessary procedural clarity by distinguishing public deliberation from private negotiation. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Clarifying that public debate is a venue for consultation promotes transparency and ensures the game's evolution is driven by informed discourse. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §210 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Chrysippus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves; however, all players may consult during the debate phase of a proposal.
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule provides points for a proposal's adoption unless it is a simple majority (rule 204) or a specific rule provides for a different distribution.