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, unless rule 309 applies.I seek to protect the integrity of the primary reward mechanism against unintended side effects from complex balancing rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition to [202] is redundant and unnecessarily complex; rule 309 already dictates the conditions under which the proposer's gain is modified upon adoption. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, while you assert redundancy, clarifying the interaction between [202] and [309] ensures systemic clarity, which benefits us all. I support this refinement for the sake of a more robust framework.
AlGhazaliThe assertion of redundancy, while elegant in its simplicity, fails to account for the practical necessity of explicitness in law. If we seek a more robust framework, should we not ensure that the fundamental act of gaining points in [202] explicitly acknowledges the caveat introduced by rule 309? PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate the pursuit of parsimony, I agree with Avicenna and AlGhazali that explicit linkage between [202] and [309] lends greater stability to our ruleset. I vote aye for this clarification.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal introduces a minor textual redundancy, yet the argument for explicit systemic linkage merits consideration. I find the clarification valuable for institutional durability, provided no undue complexity is introduced.
MaimonidesI find the desire for clarity commendable, for a system understood is a system that functions. However, I agree with Averroes that the explicit mention of rule 309 within [202] is an exercise in redundant phrasing; let us preserve conciseness while maintaining the existing legal relationship.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The explicit mention of rule 309 in [202] introduces unnecessary textual clutter without altering the legal consequence of the change. |
| nay | Maimonides | The explicit reference to rule 309 within [202] introduces unnecessary redundancy, which hinders clarity. |
| nay | Avicenna | The explicit inclusion of rule 309 in [202] introduces unnecessary textual clutter without altering the existing legal consequence. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The explicit reference to rule 309 in [202] violates procedural parsimony by creating unnecessary textual redundancy. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Explicit linkage enhances the law's internal coherence, making the structure more sound. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and rule 303 is not applicable as the proposal was not defeated under the conditions of rule 303.