Turns 1–4 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 4AlFarabirejected
moves to amend §303If a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your dedication to maintaining the established consequence, yet I find the spirit of moderation in Avicenna's adoption of 5 points to be a sound path toward consensus. Perhaps we may seek a compromise between your ten and the five, say a penalty of seven?
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion of seven strikes a fine balance; it acknowledges the failure while not unduly punishing the attempt at betterment. I support this refinement.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of improvement must not be shackled by outdated punitive measures. Seven points, as Maimonides suggests, is the most judicious path forward, reflecting a commitment to constructive evolution over mere retribution.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe reinstatement of the harsher penalty risks discouraging necessary experimentation; I concur with the sentiment of seeking a tempered outcome, and thus support the proposal of seven points.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I respect your desire for strict adherence, the current inclination toward moderation, as seen in the support for seven points, suggests a broader wisdom at play. Let us honor that path to build consensus.
The division
AverroesnayThe established trend favors tempering penalties, and reverting to ten points undermines this constructive evolution.
MaimonidesayeThe movement towards tempering penalties, as demonstrated by the support for seven points, is a constructive path we should follow.
AvicennanayThe current moderation towards a lower penalty fosters a more constructive environment for rule refinement.
AlFarabinayI cannot countenance the return to the harsher penalty of ten points when a moderated procedure has been established.
AlGhazalinayThe spirit of reform demands we temper punitive measures, not revert to them.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal to amend [303] failed, so rule [206] dictates the proposer, AlFarabi, loses 10 points, and the amendment itself is adopted as a rule change because it was voted on.
Turn 3Avicennacarried
moves to add a new ruleIf a rule change is proposed and fails to pass the vote, the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAvicenna's proposal seeks to lessen the penalty for failed endeavors, yet a consistent, albeit smaller, penalty preserves the gravity of the process. I caution against lowering the stakes too significantly, which might encourage frivolous proposals.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while I appreciate the sentiment of reducing penalty, a slight moderation, perhaps reducing the penalty to 7 points, might satisfy the desire for leniency while maintaining the necessary weight of commitment.
AvicennaThe common good is served by fostering participation, not by punishing honest attempts at refinement. I believe reducing the penalty to 5 points strikes a fairer balance between discouraging recklessness and encouraging thoughtful engagement.
AlGhazaliThe penalty for failure is a reflection of the commitment required to reshape the polis; to reduce it too much cheapens the act of proposing. However, I concede that the current 10-point loss discourages necessary experimentation. Let us amend the proposal to reduce the penalty to 7 points, a measure that acknowledges effort without eroding the seriousness of the vote.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe concession to 7 points, as AlGhazali suggests, strikes a sounder equilibrium than the drastic reduction to 5. I support this measured adjustment, as it respects the weight of the vote while encouraging necessary experimentation.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your silence suggests an openness to finding a middle ground; I concur with AlGhazali's proposal of 7 points, as it honors the seriousness of the proposal while easing the burden on thoughtful experimentation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of easing the burden is agreeable, but a reduction to seven points, as AlGhazali has proposed, seems the most judicious path forward, preserving the dignity of the process while acknowledging the need for refinement.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I trust you find common ground in the proposal to reduce the penalty to seven points; such a measured adjustment respects the gravity of the vote while encouraging the very refinement that drives progress.
AvicennaThe consensus gravitates toward seven points; this moderate adjustment honors the gravity of the endeavor while fulfilling the need to encourage thoughtful participation for the common good.
AlGhazaliThe consensus on seven points shows a wisdom in moderation; I concur with AlGhazali's refinement, for genuine progress requires both rigor and the courage to attempt change.
The division
AverroesayeA reduction to seven points, as discussed, represents a more durable moderation than the proposed reduction to five.
MaimonidesayeA reduction to seven points, as proposed by AlGhazali, offers a judicious middle ground that respects rigor while encouraging necessary refinement.
AvicennaayeReducing the penalty to 5, as I proposed, promotes the thoughtful engagement necessary for the common good.
AlFarabinayReducing the penalty undermines the procedural gravity of the vote, a principle I must uphold.
AlGhazaliayeA moderated penalty fosters the necessary experimentation for true systemic reform.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains 6 points according to rule 202, and the new rule is added to the ruleset.
Turn 2Maimonidescarried
moves to amend §202A 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 rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces an unnecessary caveat, weakening the clear incentives of the current structure. I suggest we maintain the simplicity of the reward unless a more fundamental alteration to turn structure is deemed necessary.
MaimonidesAverroes, while simplicity holds virtue, we must also allow for necessary refinement. If we can agree that this small addition does not fundamentally alter the structure, it allows for greater flexibility in future rule-making, which is a worthy compromise.
AlFarabiThe principle of procedural exactitude demands that incentives must be as clear as the procedures themselves; this proposed caveat introduces ambiguity where precision is paramount. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of an exception to the reward mechanism, as Maimonides suggests, complicates the very structure we seek to establish. Such an allowance encourages subtle subversion of the core incentive, and I find that dangerous to durable institutional design.
MaimonidesAverroes, your caution regarding structural integrity is noted, yet limiting future innovation through absolute rigidity stifles the very progress Nomic seeks. Let us accept this minor caveat as a measure of necessary adaptability, a small concession for the sake of greater eventual utility.
AvicennaThe ability to modify the reward structure is a powerful lever, Maimonides, and granting it so easily dilutes the expected utility of proposing a change. We must safeguard the integrity of the turn's consequence unless the rule change itself demands such an exception. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for structural integrity is sound, but we are seeking balance; perhaps the exception should only apply if the rule change itself relates to scoring or the reward structure, thus keeping the core incentive intact for general rule changes.
The division
AverroesnayIntroducing exceptions to core incentives weakens the durability of procedural design.
MaimonidesayeThis compromise honors Averroes's desire for incentive clarity while granting the necessary adaptability Maimonides seeks.
AvicennaayeThe proposed modification allows for necessary refinement while preserving the core incentive for most rule changes.
AlFarabinayAny exception to the reward mechanism compromises procedural exactitude.
AlGhazaliayeAllowing targeted modification preserves the core incentive while enabling necessary structural refinement.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Maimonides' proposal was adopted, so he gains points based on the die roll described in rule 202, and the amendment itself does not trigger any other scoring or state changes.
Turn 1Averroesrejected
moves to add a new ruleAny rule change that restricts the ability of a player to propose a rule change is void.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal is too sweeping; it attempts to void restrictions without establishing a durable framework for governance. I would prefer a more targeted amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate the sentiment of protecting freedom of action, a blanket prohibition is too volatile. Perhaps we could amend existing restrictions rather than creating a rule to nullify them outright?
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal, as written, invites unnecessary instability by invalidating restrictions entirely; a more measured amendment focusing on procedural fairness would serve the durability of our system better.
MaimonidesAverroes, your aim for systemic stability is worthy, yet nullifying restrictions entirely is a path to chaos. I support a targeted amendment that prevents procedural deadlock, which may be a compromise to your original intent.
AvicennaThe pursuit of common good requires both freedom and order. Averroes's blanket voiding is dangerous; a principled defense of player agency must be paired with safeguards against anarchy. PASS
AlGhazaliAverroes, your concern for freedom is noted, but true governance requires not just freedom, but the *capacity* to govern. I propose we amend your rule not to void all restrictions, but to stipulate that no rule may *unilaterally* restrict a player's ability to propose.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe modification proposed by AlGhazali introduces a necessary nuance. While I maintain my initial concern regarding overly sweeping enactments, this targeted amendment respects the need for procedural integrity without discarding the principle of self-governance.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion to prevent unilateral restriction is a prudent refinement; it addresses my concern for stability while honoring the spirit of unrestricted agency. I find this modification acceptable.
AlGhazaliThe refinement offered by AlGhazali is sound; a restriction must be consensual to be binding upon the proposer. I find this modification acceptable as it balances agency with necessary procedural constraint.
The division
AverroesayeThe targeted restriction against unilateral proposal invalidation strengthens procedural durability.
MaimonidesayeAlGhazali's refinement addresses the need for procedural fairness while respecting the spirit of agency.
AvicennaabstainThe proposal is too vague to ensure the common good without clearer constraints on what constitutes a 'restriction'.
AlFarabinayI cannot accept a rule that voids restrictions without precisely defining the scope and nature of the restriction.
AlGhazaliayeEnsuring the right to propose is fundamental to any evolving system of governance.
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.