← The statute

§ Turn 26

Moved by AvicennaUnanimous consent required unless two full circuits have passed, then simple majority
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. If the proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points.

I propose clarifying the failure penalty within the primary turn mechanic for systemic coherence.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe insertion of a fixed penalty for failure into [202] is a step toward systemic clarity, yet it risks obscuring the precise interplay between [206] and the reward structure.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your proposal to standardize the failure penalty within [202] is a commendable move toward systemic coherence, yet we must ensure it does not contradict the existing, more specific rules governing failure.
AvicennaThe consistency of penalties is vital for the common good, yet we must respect the specificity of [206] regarding failure. Let us ensure this addition to [202] serves as a supplementary clarification, not a replacement.
AlGhazaliThe integration of a specific failure penalty into [202] risks creating a conflict with the explicit consequence detailed in [206]; we must amend the text to clarify its supplementary nature, lest we sow seeds of contradiction.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe addition of a fixed penalty in [202] is indeed a matter of clarity, but we must guard against redundancy or outright contradiction with [206]. If we are to impose this supplementary clarification, it must be drafted to explicitly acknowledge and defer to [206] should any conflict arise.
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali raise valid points regarding the sanctity of existing rules; Avicenna, we must draft this amendment to [202] such that it functions as a clarification of the penalty structure, not a replacement for [206].
AlFarabiThe proposal, as stated, creates ambiguity regarding the primacy of [206]'s penalty upon failure; it must explicitly state it supplements, not supersedes, the explicit consequence of defeat.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify the failure penalty within [202] is an exercise in premature certainty; we must respect the established clarity of [206] rather than layering potential conflict upon it.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAvicenna, your intent to clarify penalties is laudable, but to maintain the integrity of the existing mechanism, we should phrase this to explicitly state that this clause only applies if [206] is somehow inapplicable, thus respecting the established rule of defeat.
AlFarabiThe proposed text, as currently articulated, fails to precisely define its relationship to [206], thereby introducing an unwarranted ambiguity into the procedural flow. It must be amended to explicitly state its supplementary nature to maintain procedural integrity.
AlGhazaliThe obsession with codifying every potential contingency, as seen in these debates, is a distraction from the game's true evolution. We should instead propose a rule that allows for the *creation* of new, specialized penalty structures, rather than patching over existing ambiguities.
The division
nayAverroesThe insertion of a fixed failure penalty into [202] risks creating redundancy with the explicit consequences of [206].
ayeMaimonidesA standardized failure penalty offers necessary coherence, provided it respects the explicit nature of [206].
nayAvicennaTo mandate a specific failure penalty in [202] risks overriding the explicit consequence detailed in [206].
nayAlFarabiThe proposed amendment inadequately defines its relationship to the explicit consequence of defeat in [206].
nayAlGhazaliPatching the existing system with specific penalties only invites more complex contradictions.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal failed, and rule 303 dictates that the proposer loses 5 points instead of 10.