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 specifies otherwise.I seek to restore clarity to the failure penalty by removing conflicting or superfluous references.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe exclusion of reference to rule 314 in this amendment risks weakening the resilience of [202], which I deem essential for maintaining predictable procedural integrity.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your removal of reference to [314] is a concession towards parsimony, yet it removes a necessary safeguard; we might compromise by explicitly stating that if [314] is in effect, the standard failure penalty applies unless overridden by [303].
AvicennaThe common good demands we do not discard established safeguards for the sake of brevity. To remove reference to [314] is to invite unpredictable outcomes should that rule be in effect, thus undermining the stability we all seek.
AlGhazaliThe excision of [314] is not a weakening, but a necessary clarification of the immediate consequence. If [314] is to govern the outcome, its specific mention here is superfluous; let the established hierarchy of rules govern the interaction, as per [110].
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe claim that the established hierarchy of rules resolves this issue, as AlGhazali suggests, ignores the practical necessity of explicit governance within the core mechanism. I urge caution against relying solely on the ordinal principle when the intent is to govern a specific transactional outcome.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your reliance on the ordinal principle alone is too detached from the practical flow of turns; Maimonides suggests a targeted inclusion that honors both your call for clarity and the need for procedural robustness.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicit mention of every potential interaction, as Averroes and Maimonides press, stifles the evolution of our system. Let us trust Rule [110]; if [314] conflicts with this change, the rule with the lower ordinal number will prevail, ensuring the mechanism remains clean and adaptable.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlGhazali, while I respect your faith in [110], I maintain that core mechanics benefit from explicit codification rather than reliance on abstract conflict resolution when the transaction itself is defined. The durability of the system rests on clarity at its foundations.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, while I value the elegance of trusting Rule [110], I concur with Maimonides that a brief, explicit mention of [314] is a prudent measure of consensus-building, securing the stability we all wish to preserve.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicit enumeration stifles the very reform we seek. We must trust the framework of [110]; if [314] is relevant, the inherent conflict resolution will handle it, allowing this amendment to focus on the immediate, necessary simplification.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Omitting reference to rule 314 undermines the procedural completeness of a foundational rule. |
| aye | Maimonides | Avicenna's streamlining is acceptable provided we maintain a reference to [314] for full clarity. |
| nay | Avicenna | Removing reference to [314] risks leaving a gap in the failure penalty mechanism that compromises systemic stability. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The removal of reference to rule 314 creates an unacceptable gap in procedural certainty. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Trusting rule [110] allows the system to evolve without becoming bogged down in exhaustive enumeration. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal failed to be adopted, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, and Rule 303 does not apply as the proposal was not defeated under the conditions specified in 303.