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, or if rule 314 is in effect, in which case the proposer receives points as specified by rule 314.This clarifies the interaction between the point-modifying rules 309 and 314 within the primary gain mechanism of 202.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe inclusion of rule [314] within the operational clause of [202] creates a needless redundancy, as [314] is already meant to govern this very outcome. We must maintain the structural purity of the rules.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with concern for purity, yet I see in his objection a fear of necessary completeness; integrating [314] clarifies the hierarchy of rewards, allowing the system to function robustly, which is a greater virtue than mere structural separation.
AvicennaThe integration of [314] into [202] risks obscuring the primary mechanism of reward, which is the die roll unless explicitly modified. While clarity is a virtue, a complex nesting of conditions hampers the ease of understanding necessary for a common good table.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAvicenna, while I agree that simplicity is desirable, the hierarchy of precedence is best established explicitly. My proposal does not supplant the core mechanism, but rather clarifies how [314] interacts when it is present, ensuring no ambiguity arises when two mechanisms address the same outcome.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: The suggestion to merge the clauses of [202] and [314] conflates procedural description with consequential definition; a rule should describe *what* happens, not merely reiterate *how* a secondary rule addresses it.
MaimonidesAverroes, your insistence on structural purity neglects the practical need for comprehensive guidance; let us agree to a formulation that acknowledges the established hierarchy without repeating the entirety of [314]'s text.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to weave [314] into [202] is an unnecessary complication, Maimonides; let us instead ensure [314] is robust enough to stand independently, allowing each rule to maintain its intended scope.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Embedding rule 314 within 202 creates a structural dependency where independent rule integrity is diminished. |
| aye | Maimonides | Integrating 314 clarifies the reward hierarchy, which benefits the stability we seek. |
| nay | Avicenna | Embedding 314 into 202 obscures the primary mechanism and creates unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The procedural purity demands that rules address their own scope without redundant cross-referencing. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Embedding rule 314 into 202 muddies the water by conflating procedural definition with consequential specification. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and rule 303 is not in effect as the proposal was not defeated in a manner that triggers its specific clause.