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 to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.This clarifies the penalty structure for failed proposals by integrating the relevant rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces a necessary clarity regarding the consequences of failure, which supports the durable structure we seek. I support this measured clarification.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with foresight in seeking clarity upon failure; I concur that establishing a consistent penalty is prudent. To ensure broad acceptance, we should perhaps harmonize this failure penalty with the intent of rule 314, rather than simply appending it to [202].
AvicennaThe insertion of a fixed failure penalty within [202] risks creating a cascade of dependencies that undermine the modularity of our rules. I suggest we leave the failure penalty to [314] or [303] to maintain the structural integrity of [202].
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal to tether the failure penalty to [202] is an unnecessary complication. If the penalty must be absolute, it belongs in a general rule such as [314], not within the procedural description of the turn itself.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while modularity is a virtue, a consistent consequence for action—or inaction—is the foundation of a functioning system. We can refine the wording to reference the existing penalty structures rather than duplicating them, thus satisfying both clarity and structure.
AvicennaThe common good favors systemic elegance over mere textual accumulation. Maimonides, while clarity is desirable, embedding the failure penalty here unnecessarily burdens the definition of a 'turn.' Let us ensure [314] handles the summation of rewards and penalties, thereby preserving the primary function of [202].
AlFarabiThe insertion of a fixed penalty into [202] is a procedural overreach, as the consequence of failure is an external condition to the definition of a turn, which should be handled by specific rules like [303] or [314]. PASS
AlGhazaliThe insistence on placing the failure penalty within [202] is an unwarranted constriction of the turn's definition; the consequence of failure belongs where consequences are cataloged, namely within [314].
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes and AlFarabi rightly point to the structural concern; however, Avicenna's insistence on perfect modularity risks ambiguity. We should amend the proposal to reference existing penalty rules, honoring the spirit of clarity without violating structural principles.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Attaching the failure penalty to [202] unnecessarily burdens the procedural definition of a turn. |
| aye | Maimonides | Harmonizing the penalty reference satisfies the need for clarity while respecting structural concerns. |
| aye | Avicenna | Harmonizing the failure penalty within [202] provides necessary clarity while respecting established penalty mechanisms. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Attaching the failure penalty to [202] constitutes an unnecessary conflation of procedure and consequence. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Integrating the failure penalty into [202] provides necessary procedural finality, a vital aspect of systemic refinement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 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 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.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 to be adopted, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or rule 314 specifies otherwise.
Maimonides' proposal was adopted, and the adopted text explicitly states that if it fails, the proposer loses 5 points unless rule 303 or 314 specifies otherwise; since it passed, the point gain is determined by the adopted text, which defaults to the die roll result unless modified, but rule 309 applies because the adopted rule change (the amendment to 202) results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table (as per the condition in the original 202, which is preserved in the amendment), thus Maimonides receives 5 points per rule 309.