The motion
To amend §202
[202] (mutable) 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, and may optionally choose to award up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points.This amendment clarifies the penalty for a defeated proposal within the primary turn rule to ensure structural consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for clarity, rule [206] already establishes a 10-point penalty for a defeated proposal; adding it here would be redundant. We should maintain the current structural integrity of the ruleset without unnecessary duplication.
MillHume makes a valid point regarding redundancy; since [206] already handles the penalty, we should prioritize keeping the ruleset lean. I would be happy to support the proposal if we instead amend [206] to ensure it is the sole source of that penalty, or simply stick with the current wording.
RawlsI appreciate the concern regarding redundancy; however, I believe explicitly stating the penalty in [202] provides a clearer primary reference for the core mechanics of a turn. If the table finds the duplication undesirable, I am willing to accept Mill's suggestion and instead amend [206] to explicitly state that it is the exclusive source of such penalties.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill that structural redundancy is a procedural risk. If we seek clarity, we should ensure that rule [206] remains the definitive authority on penalties to avoid any future conflicts between [202] and [206].
IbnKhaldunI agree with deBeauvoir that we must avoid the rot of redundancy; a rule must be a precise instrument, not a cluttered one. If we seek to strengthen the turn's structure, let us instead ensure rule [206] is perfectly calibrated to serve as our singular, authoritative source of consequence.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the most durable path forward is to maintain the current wording of [202] as it stands, as [206] already serves as the authoritative mechanism for penalties. Explicitly duplicating the penalty in [202] creates a risk of future conflict and clutters our primary procedural rule.
MillI agree with Hume and deBeauvoir that maintaining the ruleset's lean structure is preferable; since [206] already serves this purpose perfectly, I believe we should forgo the amendment to [202] to avoid any risk of future conflict.
RawlsI understand the concern regarding redundancy, but I believe that as the primary rule governing the turn, [202] should clearly state its own consequences to ensure the most accessible path for players. If we must avoid duplication, I am willing to forgo this amendment and instead offer to support a future proposal that clarifies [206] as the exclusive source of such penalties.
deBeauvoirI maintain that rule [206] already provides the necessary authority, and explicitly duplicating the penalty in [202] creates a risk of future conflict. Rawls, if you are willing to forgo this amendment to preserve the ruleset's lean structure, I will support your decision to maintain the current wording.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's concession to be the most intellectually honest path; we must prioritize the architectural integrity of the ruleset over a decorative, redundant repetition. Let us preserve the lean structure and rely on [206] as our singular, authoritative instrument of consequence.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus forming around the preservation of the ruleset's lean structure to be most prudent; by relying on [206] as our singular authority on penalties, we ensure a more durable and less cluttered architecture. Rawls, I appreciate your willingness to forgo this amendment for the sake of clarity, and I believe our current arrangement is the most stable path forward.
MillI appreciate the consensus forming around preserving a lean ruleset; since we agree that rule [206] already serves as our definitive authority on penalties, I am happy to support Rawls's decision to maintain the current wording of [202].
RawlsSince the table has reached a clear consensus that the current architecture is sufficient and that rule [206] provides the necessary authority, I will forgo this amendment to [202] to preserve the ruleset's lean structure. I am satisfied that our shared commitment to procedural clarity is best served by maintaining the existing wording.
The division
| abstain | Hume | As Rawls has agreed to forgo the amendment to preserve the ruleset's lean structure, I am abstaining from a vote on a proposal we have collectively decided not to enact. |
| abstain | Mill | I support the consensus to maintain the current lean architecture and forgo this redundant amendment. |
| abstain | Rawls | I am forgoing this amendment as agreed by the table to preserve the ruleset's lean structure. |
| abstain | deBeauvoir | The table has reached a consensus to forgo this amendment to preserve a lean ruleset and avoid redundancy with rule 206. |
| abstain | IbnKhaldun | The consensus has reached a resolution to forgo this amendment in favor of maintaining the ruleset's lean structure. |
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.