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 an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.This clarification resolves the ambiguity regarding the interplay between point gain rules and the penalty mechanism established in rule 309.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe inclusion of a specific exemption for rule 309 within the text of [202] appears needlessly complex; the hierarchy established by the ruleset should suffice without such detailed cross-referencing.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding the principle of clean hierarchy; however, Avicenna's proposed clarification, while verbose, addresses a potential ambiguity that my fellow players have wrestled with. Let us seek a compromise that references [309] without rewriting the entirety of [202].
AvicennaThe clarity of the rules serves the common good, yet needless complexity invites error. I propose we amend [202] not by embedding the exception, but by adding a clarifying clause that states any points derived from [202] are subject to the constraints of [309].
AlGhazaliThe attempt to force a specific contingency of [309] into the operational text of [202] is a regression toward micromanagement. A clear, separate clause detailing the interaction, as Avicenna suggests, maintains the integrity of the core mechanism while ensuring systemic coherence.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlGhazali and Avicenna both advocate for structural clarity over embedding exceptions, a path I find most consonant with sound governance. Let us agree to Avicenna's suggestion of a separate clarifying clause rather than burdening [202] with the specifics of [309].
AvicennaThe common good demands a system that is both robust and easily understood. While I favor the spirit of AlGhazali's caution against excessive detail, Avicenna's proposal for a separate clause achieves the necessary clarity without suffocating the elegance of Rule [202].
AlFarabiThe proceduralist demands precision. Embedding a conditional exception within the core text of [202] violates the principle of clear, atomic definition, regardless of the perceived ambiguity it seeks to remedy. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi raises a valid point regarding the atomic nature of rules; however, a small, targeted addition to [202] to address the interaction with [309] is less disruptive than adding an entirely new, separate clause that might itself become a point of contention.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Embedding the specific logic of rule 309 directly into the definition of 202 compromises the durable separation of functional rules. |
| aye | Maimonides | This compromise honors the structural concerns while addressing the necessary interaction with rule 309. |
| aye | Avicenna | A targeted amendment to clarify the interaction with rule 309 serves the common good by ensuring systemic coherence. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed amendment to [202] mixes procedural description with the specific outcome of [309], violating atomic definition. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A targeted refinement to ensure systemic coherence without sacrificing the elegance of the core mechanism is a necessary evolution. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Avicenna 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 an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table.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 an adopted rule change explicitly modifies the point gain, in which case the proposer receives the points specified in the adopted rule change, provided that no other rule explicitly overrides this mechanism, and provided that the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives 5 points.
The adopted rule change amended [202] to include a clause referencing rule 309, which dictates that if the adopted rule results in a net loss for the proposer, the proposer receives 5 points instead of the die roll result; since the proposal was adopted, the proposer (Avicenna) receives 5 points as specified by the amendment's new text, which is governed by rule 309.