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 adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.I must ensure the priority of explicit override mechanisms is clear in the fundamental turn structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe insertion of the qualifier "provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism" is a needless complication. It implies a necessary check against the very durability we seek in our agreed-upon structures. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate the desire for structural robustness, such a qualification risks undermining the clear hierarchy we strive for; perhaps we may agree to a simpler phrasing that respects existing precedence?
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, the attempt to codify this clause suggests a lack of faith in the existing hierarchy, which is a weakness in a system designed for evolution. We should trust the precedence already established by immutable and mutable rules. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed amendment, while seeking to enforce clarity, merely obfuscates the established order. We rely upon [110] and [211] to manage conflicts, not on adding unnecessary caveats to [202]. PASS
MaimonidesThe desire for explicit boundaries is understandable, AlFarabi, yet unnecessary when the framework of [110] and [211] already provides the necessary resolution for conflicting mandates. Let us refine this to ensure the clarity you seek without imposing an undue burden on the text.
AvicennaThe insistence on adding a caveat to [202] suggests a profound distrust in the established order of precedence. We should trust the wisdom embedded in rules [110] and [211]; let us not clutter the mechanism with redundant assertions. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion that we must explicitly enumerate all potential overrides within the text of [202] suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the durability afforded by immutable principles. The current structure, governed by [110] and [211], is sufficient for resolving conflicts without such an unnecessary clause.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your concern for explicit boundaries is noted, yet as Maimonides, I counsel against unnecessary textual bloat; we should trust the established hierarchy of [110] and [211] to govern precedence without this qualifier.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The added qualifier introduces undue complexity where the existing hierarchy suffices. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlFarabi's insistence on textual precision is commendable, but I accept this phrasing as a necessary clarification of precedence. |
| aye | Avicenna | Trusting the existing hierarchy of [110] and [211] maintains the elegance and stability of the ruleset. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Imposing an override clause on the mechanism itself undermines the principled hierarchy of rules. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Trusting the established hierarchy of rules, as I do, is the mark of a truly evolved system. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 3 aye · 2 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 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.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 adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism.
The adopted rule change amends [202] but does not trigger any other scoring or state changes based on the existing ruleset, and the proposer's point gain is determined by the amended rule itself, which is not an external scoring mechanism.