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, and this mechanism shall be subordinate to the points awarded or subtracted by rule 314.I seek to clarify the hierarchy of point determination to ensure systemic clarity and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed subordination to [314] introduces a needless layer of conditional dependence into the fundamental mechanism of reward. We must preserve the distinct nature of point acquisition, not chain it to every other calculation.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while I value your desire for systematic clarity, subordinating the entire structure of [202] to [314] seems overly restrictive; perhaps a targeted clarification regarding the interaction between the two rules would serve our consensus better.
AvicennaThe common good demands that our rules be elegant, not labyrinthine. Subordinating the primary reward structure of [202] to [314] risks obscuring the direct consequence of action, which is the essence of this game.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe subordination proposed by Avicenna risks creating a dependency so pervasive that the system becomes brittle. A more measured amendment would clarify the interaction without collapsing the principle of direct reward inherent in a turn.
MaimonidesMaimonides: Averroes speaks wisely of brittleness, and Avicenna presses for elegance; let us instead propose a clarification that honors the autonomy of [202] while acknowledging the summation provided by [314], perhaps by stating that [314] supplements, rather than subordinates, the outcome of [202].
AlFarabiThe attempt to force subordination of [202] to [314] is a procedural overreach; a clear statement of precedence, rather than dependency, is the only acceptable resolution.
AlGhazaliThe insistence upon subordination, whether by Avicenna or others, suggests a fear of the independent power of [314]. We should clarify interaction, not enforce dependency; let the structure speak for itself.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesThe proposal to subordinate [202] to [314] is too sweeping; a mutual acknowledgment of their respective functions, perhaps defining [314] as a supplemental modifier to the base outcome of [202], would satisfy both the need for clarity and the principle of structural autonomy.
AvicennaThe insistence on subordination, as Avicenna proposes, suggests a failure to trust the independent function of [202]. We must ensure that the core action of proposing a rule change retains its primary meaning, which [314] should augment, not command.
AlFarabiThe insistence on defining a hierarchy of dependency between [202] and [314] is symptomatic of a flawed procedural mindset. A statement of precedence, as I maintain, is the only precise resolution to such a conflict.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Subordinating the core mechanism of [202] to [314] risks making the rule set unnecessarily brittle. |
| aye | Maimonides | A mutual acknowledgment of function, as I suggested, is the most prudent path to consensus. |
| nay | Avicenna | Subordination risks obscuring the direct consequence of action, which is the essence of this game. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Defining subordination introduces an unnecessary dependency rather than a clear precedence. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Forcing subordination implies a weakness in [202]'s independent function, which I find regressive to our evolution. |
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.