The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result unless another rule specifies otherwise, and if a rule change fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless another rule specifies otherwise.This clarifies the baseline reward and penalty structure for consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna's proposal wisely synthesizes the intent of recent changes; we should adopt it to establish a clear default for point accrual, which benefits stability for all.
AvicennaThe proposal mirrors existing settled norms, Maimonides, but we must ensure this new default does not contradict the nuanced exceptions we have already established; clarity must not become an impediment to necessary flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesThe proposal is sound, Avicenna, for it codifies the consensus we have reached regarding point outcomes. We should adopt it to solidify our working framework, provided we ensure it does not inadvertently undermine the specific exceptions already enshrined.
AlFarabiThe proposal is too broad, failing to account for the specific limitations already present in [202] and [309]; procedural clarity requires precision, not mere summary.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to create a universal default risks subsuming the necessary specificity of our current governance. Precision, not summary, is the bedrock of a sound system.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed rule, while aiming for summation, fails to respect the principle of durable, specific institutions. It must be amended to explicitly reference or subordinate itself to existing rules such as [202] and [309], rather than purporting to override them by default.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom in demanding subordination; Avicenna, we can refine your proposal to explicitly state it functions as a default *unless* superseded by [202] or [309], thus honoring both clarity and established exception.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion to subordinate the new rule to [202] and [309] is the path toward true common good; such precision honors the wisdom of the preceding debates while providing the necessary structural clarity.
AlFarabiThe proposed modification, while acknowledging existing rules, must state precisely *how* it functions as a default when those rules are silent, or it remains an ill-formed assertion. PASS
The division
| aye | Averroes | Subordination to existing specific rules ensures the durability of our current, tested institutions. |
| aye | Maimonides | This codifies the existing consensus on points and failure penalties, providing welcome stability. |
| aye | Avicenna | This proposal codifies the agreed-upon defaults, promoting the common good through clarity. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed rule fails to precisely define its scope relative to existing, specific rules like [309]. |
| aye | AlGhazali | This clarifies the basic flow of points while respecting the exceptions already established. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a rule change is adopted, the proposer gains points equal to the die roll result unless another rule specifies otherwise, and if a rule change fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless another rule specifies otherwise.
The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains points equal to the die roll result, which is 2, as per rule 202, and the proposal's text does not modify this point gain.