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. If the proposal fails, the proposer loses 5 points, unless rule 303 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses 5 points.I seek to harmonize the point loss mechanism across successful and failed proposals for greater systemic clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, your addition regarding the failure penalty mirrors the intent of [314] and [303], which I find meritorious. Let us ensure the phrasing is perfectly clear so that no ambiguity can arise for the players.
AvicennaThe integration of the failure penalty into [202] is a step toward coherence, yet it risks redundancy, as [314] already addresses this summation. We must ensure that the addition serves to clarify the mechanism without merely duplicating existing provisions.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify the failure penalty within [202] is an exercise in unnecessary entanglement; let the separate rules, [314] and [303], govern their respective outcomes cleanly, preserving the atomic nature of our mechanisms.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlGhazali speaks with admirable devotion to separation, but durability requires cohesion; binding the failure consequence to the turn structure, even if redundant, strengthens the core mechanism of [202].
MaimonidesAlGhazali, while separation is a virtue, complete atomization leads to systemic gaps; Avicenna's proposal, if carefully worded to clarify the interaction between [202], [314], and [303], offers a greater stability for all players.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your dedication to purity is noted, but Maimonides agrees with Avicenna that clarity supersedes strict atomism here; we should ensure this addition clarifies, rather than merely duplicates, the penalty structure.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on embedding the failure penalty here, as Avicenna suggests, merely binds the turn structure to the consequence of failure. We must maintain the functional independence of the adoption and failure mechanics, as championed by the clarity of [303] and [314]. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | Binding the failure penalty to [202] risks creating unnecessary entanglement rather than durable clarity. |
| aye | Maimonides | Clarity regarding failure consequences, as Avicenna suggests, promotes a more stable consensus. |
| nay | Avicenna | The failure penalty is adequately covered by rules [303] and [314], and embedding it here risks redundancy and confusion. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Binding the failure penalty to [202] compromises the procedural separation of outcomes established by [303] and [314]. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Entangling the failure penalty into [202] muddies the clear demarcation already established by [303] and [314]. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as rule 303 is not in effect.