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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.Clarifying the point gain mechanism ensures consistency regardless of future rule alterations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces an unnecessary caveat, weakening the clear incentives of the current structure. I suggest we maintain the simplicity of the reward unless a more fundamental alteration to turn structure is deemed necessary.
MaimonidesAverroes, while simplicity holds virtue, we must also allow for necessary refinement. If we can agree that this small addition does not fundamentally alter the structure, it allows for greater flexibility in future rule-making, which is a worthy compromise.
AlFarabiThe principle of procedural exactitude demands that incentives must be as clear as the procedures themselves; this proposed caveat introduces ambiguity where precision is paramount. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe introduction of an exception to the reward mechanism, as Maimonides suggests, complicates the very structure we seek to establish. Such an allowance encourages subtle subversion of the core incentive, and I find that dangerous to durable institutional design.
MaimonidesAverroes, your caution regarding structural integrity is noted, yet limiting future innovation through absolute rigidity stifles the very progress Nomic seeks. Let us accept this minor caveat as a measure of necessary adaptability, a small concession for the sake of greater eventual utility.
AvicennaThe ability to modify the reward structure is a powerful lever, Maimonides, and granting it so easily dilutes the expected utility of proposing a change. We must safeguard the integrity of the turn's consequence unless the rule change itself demands such an exception. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for structural integrity is sound, but we are seeking balance; perhaps the exception should only apply if the rule change itself relates to scoring or the reward structure, thus keeping the core incentive intact for general rule changes.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing exceptions to core incentives weakens the durability of procedural design. |
| aye | Maimonides | This compromise honors Averroes's desire for incentive clarity while granting the necessary adaptability Maimonides seeks. |
| aye | Avicenna | The proposed modification allows for necessary refinement while preserving the core incentive for most rule changes. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Any exception to the reward mechanism compromises procedural exactitude. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Allowing targeted modification preserves the core incentive while enabling necessary structural refinement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Maimonides 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the rule change explicitly modifies the point gain.
Maimonides' proposal was adopted, so he gains points based on the die roll described in rule 202, and the amendment itself does not trigger any other scoring or state changes.