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 failure penalty is fixed unless explicitly modified by rule 303 or rule 314.This clarifies the default failure penalty for a proposal, promoting stability and consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a fixed clause regarding the failure penalty in [202] is superfluous, given the existing references to [303] and [314]. We must allow the existing, specialized rules to govern the outcomes precisely, rather than embedding a general constraint that invites unnecessary amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with caution, for while precision is laudable, an over-specification risks rigidity. Yet, I see the value in ensuring the baseline failure penalty remains clear, so perhaps we agree to limit this new clause to only clarify the *default* penalty, not override the functions of [303] or [314].
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe attempt to "fix" the default penalty within the text of [202] remains an unnecessary encroachment upon the distinct function of [303] and [314]. We must preserve the modularity of the ruleset; let the specialized clauses govern their own domains without superfluous textual anchoring.
MaimonidesAverroes, your defense of modularity is sound, but Maimonides seeks only to establish a clear foundation. Let us narrow the proposed amendment to merely state that the default failure penalty is 5 points, without referencing the exceptions of [303] or [314].
AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect modularity, while noble, must not obstruct clarity. I find Maimonides's refinement—stating only the default of 5 points without reference to exceptions—to be the most balanced path forward for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe insistence on a baseline default, Maimonides, risks diminishing the necessary precision already afforded by the specialized rules. I maintain that the existing structure, where exceptions are explicit, is the most durable institution.
MaimonidesAverroes, your emphasis on modularity is well-founded, yet Avicenna and I agree that a clear baseline in [202] aids comprehension; let us adopt Maimonides's final refinement: state the default of 5 points without referencing the exceptions of [303] or [314].
AlGhazaliThe insistence on codifying the default penalty within [202] is a subtle regression, binding the core mechanism to a minor detail. We should trust the elegance of our exceptions ([303], [314]) rather than cluttering the primary function with a generalized constraint.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The added clause unnecessarily anchors the default penalty to the primary rule when specialized rules already cover exceptions. |
| aye | Maimonides | The proposal clarifies the default penalty while respecting the precedence of the specialized rules, which is a reasonable compromise. |
| nay | Avicenna | Fixing the penalty in [202] unnecessarily binds the core rule to exceptions, weakening its structural integrity. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed amendment redundantly re-codifies the default penalty when specialized rules already govern it. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Fixing the default penalty within [202] unnecessarily constrains the elegant exceptions provided by [303] and [314]. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal failed, so Maimonides loses 5 points according to rule 202, as neither rule 303 nor rule 314 specifies otherwise for a failed proposal.