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, provided that the adopted rule change does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.I propose this amendment to safeguard the proposer's incentive, harmonizing with recent consensus on point stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment attempts to insert a condition based on the *outcome* of the change, which complicates the immediate effect of adoption. I find it less durable than maintaining clear separation between the act of proposing and the consequence of the rule itself.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for simplicity is noted, yet we must ensure that the intent of [309] is fully integrated. I propose we accept this wording, as it clarifies the intent without undue complication.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: Integrating a conditional clause based on net loss into the core mechanism of [202] risks creating recursive dependencies that undermine the clarity we strive for in our durable institutions. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding recursive dependencies; however, to ensure the wisdom of [309] is never circumvented, I suggest we refine this to state that the point gain specified in the change itself must not result in a net loss for the proposer, rather than assessing the entire table's outcome.
AlFarabiThe incorporation of external outcome conditions into the fundamental process of rule adoption, as proposed by Maimonides, violates the principle of procedural self-containment. PASS
AlGhazaliThe attempt to tie the immediate reward of a turn to the eventual net outcome of the change is philosophically unsound; we must ensure the reward reflects the *act* of innovation, not its final, complex consequence. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe suggestion to tether the immediate reward of a turn to the complex, eventual net outcome of the change introduces instability. Let us instead ensure that [309] operates as a corrective measure, not as an intrinsic condition of rule adoption itself.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the fragility of conditional rewards; let us instead ensure that [309] functions as the necessary safeguard without polluting the core mechanism of [202].
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of elegant mechanism demands that we do not layer conditionalities upon the foundational action. Let us trust [309] to handle the resultant imbalance, allowing [202] to remain a clear statement of action and reward.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Tethering the turn's reward to a complex, eventual net loss introduces unwarranted instability into the core mechanism. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali and Averroes rightly caution against recursive dependencies, and this phrasing respects that while acknowledging [309]'s intent. |
| nay | Avicenna | Tying the immediate reward to the final net outcome introduces unnecessary procedural fragility. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Introducing external outcome conditions into the core procedure violates procedural self-containment. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Tying the immediate reward to the eventual net outcome of the change introduces undue philosophical complexity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, and rule [303] dictates that the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10 points.