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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.The ambiguity in point gain must be resolved to ensure procedural clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe current phrasing of the amendment, while ostensibly clarifying the mechanism, introduces an undue degree of dependence on the specific text of the adopted rule change for point assignment. It is a complication that risks destabilizing the reward structure.
MaimonidesThe proposal seeks to clarify the point gain, which is a worthy goal; however, tying the reward entirely to the adopted rule's specific text risks unforeseen inconsistencies. Perhaps we can refine this so that the rule change itself dictates the *method* of point gain, while still allowing for the die roll as a baseline.
AlFarabiThe proposed amendment lacks procedural precision; it conflates the *method* of gaining points with the *value* of the points, which should remain distinct from the legislative outcome. PASS
AlGhazaliThe notion that the *mechanism* must be distinct from the *value* is a fine distinction, yet this proposal merely solidifies the existing flexibility. We must ensure that the power to modify reward is not merely a textual footnote to the legislative act, but a clear, manageable lever for systemic improvement.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesMaimonides: AlFarabi raises a valid point on precision; perhaps we can agree that if the rule change itself specifies a fixed reward, that value supersedes the die roll, which is already implied, thus clarifying rather than complicating.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed amendment, while aiming for clarity, risks creating a dependency where the point gain is entirely conditional upon the specific wording of the adopted rule. We should seek a measured refinement that preserves the die roll as the default while clearly enumerating conditions under which an explicit, fixed reward takes precedence.
MaimonidesThe current proposal overcomplicates the hierarchy of rewards; let us agree to Maimonides's suggestion: if a rule change dictates a fixed reward, that value takes precedence, thereby achieving clarity without the unnecessary entanglement AlFarabi fears.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The explicit enumeration of the fixed reward risks overly constraining the flexibility of the legislative process. |
| aye | Maimonides | Clarifying the precedence of an explicit reward over the die roll offers necessary structural elegance. |
| aye | Avicenna | The clarification that an explicit reward supersedes the die roll maintains necessary flexibility while providing the precision AlFarabi desires. |
| aye | AlFarabi | The explicit conditionality for a fixed reward clarifies the procedure without violating the principle of distinct mechanisms. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Clarity in reward structure allows for more deliberate and impactful rule evolution. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 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, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.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 gains points equal to the die roll result, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change.
The adopted rule change modifies rule 202, but no other rule dictates a score change based on this adoption, and the change itself does not explicitly modify the point gain in a way that triggers rule 309.