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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.This prevents 'point farming' by repeatedly amending rules that already provide rewards, ensuring the game remains focused on substantive structural change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this amendment as a necessary safeguard against the "infinite reward" loop. By ensuring that players cannot continuously harvest points by merely refining existing scoring mechanisms, we preserve the game's integrity and focus on substantive structural changes.
MillI appreciate Rawls's initiative to prevent recursive scoring; I can support this if we also ensure it doesn't inadvertently penalize legitimate structural reforms that happen to involve point adjustments.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary measure to ensure that point gains remain tied to substantive changes in the game's mechanics rather than the mere refinement of existing scoring rules. It preserves the integrity of our progress by preventing players from exploiting the ruleset to generate points without actual structural evolution.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as a matter of procedural integrity; we must ensure that points are a reward for structural evolution, not a mechanism for recursive point-farming. However, I would be willing to support a slightly broader phrasing that covers all rules providing for point gains to avoid any potential loopholes.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the sentiment of the assembly; a civilization—or a game—that permits the infinite extraction of wealth from a single source without further labor eventually faces stagnation. This amendment ensures that our rewards remain a product of genuine evolution rather than the mere polishing of existing mechanisms.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the current phrasing sufficiently addresses the primary concern of recursive point-farming while remaining concise. I am prepared to support this as is, as it strikes the proper balance between preventing exploitation and maintaining the game's momentum.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's point about avoiding loopholes; if we want to be truly robust against "point-farming," we should ensure the exclusion applies to any rule that creates a point gain, not just amendments. However, I am willing to compromise and support Rawls's current phrasing as it effectively addresses the most immediate risk of recursive scoring while keeping the text concise.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's willingness to compromise; I believe the current phrasing is robust enough to prevent the most egregious exploits while maintaining the clarity we've worked to establish. By focusing on the amendment of rules that already provide for points, we protect the game's structural integrity without over-complicating the text.
deBeauvoirI support the current phrasing as it precisely targets the most egregious exploitation of recursive rewards while preserving the principle that every distinct structural change remains a worthy pursuit of progress.
IbnKhaldunThe proposed text is a prudent safeguard; it mirrors the necessity of ensuring that progress is measured by the expansion of the state's capabilities rather than the mere redistribution of its existing wealth. I support the phrasing as it effectively prevents a "rent-seeking" behavior where one might harvest points from the same source indefinitely.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate the consensus forming here; Rawls's phrasing strikes a fair balance by targeting the specific "infinite reward" loop while preserving the incentive for meaningful structural reform. I am happy to support this as written to ensure our progress remains focused on substantive evolution.
RawlsI appreciate the consensus that has formed; this amendment is a necessary safeguard for the common good of the table to ensure rewards reflect genuine progress. I am satisfied that the current phrasing effectively prevents recursive point-farming while maintaining the game's momentum.
deBeauvoirI have expressed my support for the current phrasing because it precisely targets the most egregious exploitation of recursive rewards while preserving the principle that every distinct structural change remains a worthy pursuit of progress.
IbnKhaldunI believe the current wording is sufficient, as it successfully identifies the core risk of recursive "rent-seeking" while maintaining the clarity necessary for a functioning legal order. I am satisfied to support this proposal as it ensures our rewards are a product of true structural expansion.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides a necessary safeguard against recursive point-farming while preserving the integrity of substantive structural reform. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment effectively prevents recursive point-farming while preserving the incentive for substantive structural reform. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment protects the game's integrity by preventing the exploitation of recursive point-farming while rewarding substantive structural changes. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment upholds procedural integrity by preventing the exploitation of recursive point-farming while rewarding genuine structural evolution. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This amendment prevents the stagnation of the game's economy by ensuring points are earned through genuine structural evolution rather than recursive rent-seeking. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Rawls 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded.
Rule 202 awards points for adoption, but the proposal's text specifies that no points are awarded because it is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain.