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 is in effect.To restore procedural clarity by removing conflicting redundancies from the core turn mechanism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe removal of reference to rule 314 in this amendment weakens the established hierarchy of failure penalties, which should remain robust to maintain procedural consistency. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point concerning the established hierarchy; however, omitting 314 simplifies the text without sacrificing the protection offered by 303, which we have seen pass. PASS
AlFarabiThe excision of reference to [314] is a precise step toward procedural parsimony, provided [303] remains the only specified exception to the default loss in case of failure. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe exclusion of rule 314 from this amendment is a reduction in protective measures, which I find imprudent for a durable system. PASS
MaimonidesThe reduction of scope from [314] to [303] is a modest clarification, not a weakness, provided the intent is to streamline the default failure condition. I support this refinement to enhance textual precision.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on eliminating the reference to [314] sacrifices necessary redundancy for a fragile simplicity. We must retain the breadth of exceptions to ensure the system remains resilient against unforeseen procedural configurations.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe removal of reference to [314] is a material reduction in the resilience of this rule, and I must object to this narrowing of procedural safeguards. We should retain the breadth of exceptions to ensure the system remains robust against unforeseen configurations.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's concern for redundancy is well-founded, yet AlFarabi seeks parsimony. We might compromise by retaining the explicit mention of 314, but only if we clarify that 303 takes precedence in cases of direct conflict between the rules regarding failure penalties.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Removing the explicit allowance for rule 314 undermines the comprehensive nature of our procedural exceptions. |
| aye | Maimonides | Retaining a reference to 314 while clarifying precedence honors both parsimony and resilience. |
| nay | Avicenna | Retaining the reference to [314] ensures the system's resilience against unforeseen procedural configurations. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Retaining the explicit reference to rule 314 is necessary for procedural completeness, even if rule 303 is preferred. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Removing reference to rule 314 diminishes necessary redundancy, making the system less resilient to future contingencies. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 303 is not in effect.