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, and this penalty applies regardless of whether rule 314 is in effect.Clarifying the failure penalty's independence from rule 314 ensures systemic consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of such a blanket clause, while seemingly clarifying, unnecessarily binds the failure penalty to the text of [202], thereby circumventing the precise conditional logic established by [303] and [314]. We must maintain the integrity of specific clauses.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the danger of such a broad restriction; a consensus that respects the specificity of [303] and [314] is preferable to textual bluntness.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of absolute clarity, as proposed here, sacrifices the elegance of layered governance. If the intent is to ensure the failure penalty is never overridden, a targeted amendment to [303] or [314] is far more principled than cluttering the core mechanism of [202].
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesThe proposal attempts to enforce uniformity, which I commend; however, by overriding the conditional nature of [303] and [314] within [202], it risks undermining the very precision we strive for. We should seek a modification to [303] or [314] that reflects this intent, rather than altering the foundational turn structure.
AvicennaThe desire for systemic elegance must not devolve into textual rigidity. While I appreciate the attempt to solidify the failure condition, binding it so absolutely within [202] diminishes the autonomy of the specific rules designed for that very purpose, such as [303] and [314].
Discussion · round 3
AvicennaAverroes and AlGhazali speak with wisdom regarding the dangers of textual overreach; let us respect the established hierarchy and allow [303] and [314] to govern their respective conditions without such a broad restriction in [202].
AlGhazaliThe assertion that this blanket clause provides clarity while simultaneously eroding the principled structure of our governance is flawed. We must trust the specificity of our modifiers; true reform enhances, not suffocates, existing mechanisms.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed addition improperly restricts the independent application of rules [303] and [314]. |
| nay | Maimonides | This amendment unnecessarily overrides the conditional logic of [303] and [314] within the core mechanism of [202]. |
| nay | Avicenna | Such a clause diminishes the principled autonomy of specific rules like [303] and [314]. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The appended clause creates a prescriptive override that invalidates the conditional logic of [303] and [314]. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Binding the failure penalty within [202] undermines the nuanced governance provided by [303] and [314]. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal failed to be adopted, so the proposer, Avicenna, loses 10 points according to rule 206, as rules 303 and 314 do not specify otherwise for a defeated proposal.