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.I seek to eliminate the procedural ambiguity introduced by rule 314 into the core mechanism of point allocation in 202.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's amendment to [202] removes the contingency of rule 314 regarding failure penalties, which is a reduction in systemic robustness. I find this excision to be a step toward undue simplification rather than necessary refinement.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your aim for parsimony is noted; however, removing the safeguard of rule 314 weakens the structure unnecessarily. Perhaps we might amend it further to reference *both* 303 and 314, as was present before, thus maintaining the breadth of contingency while still refining the clause.
AlGhazaliThe removal of reference to [314] is indeed a simplification, but it creates a single point of failure in the penalty structure. We should strive for a structure where the mechanism is clear, not merely reduced.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi's proposed restriction to rule 303 alone is an over-optimization toward minimalism; a durable system requires the inclusion of all available contingency mechanisms, and the exclusion of rule 314 weakens the framework.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your desire for brevity is understandable, yet removing the path to recourse provided by [314] seems to invite unnecessary rigidity. Let us, instead of excising, ensure the phrasing explicitly covers both [303] and [314] for comprehensive security.
AvicennaThe removal of rule 314's contingency is a disservice to the common good, as it narrows our recourse should 303 not apply. Maimonides is correct; we must maintain the comprehensive nature of the failure clause by explicitly retaining reference to both 303 and 314.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of elegant parsimony must never come at the cost of structural resilience; retaining the dual contingency of [303] and [314] ensures a more robust and just mechanism for all players.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I commend your drive toward conciseness, the collective wisdom of the table has shown that structural resilience is paramount; let us restore the full contingency by referencing both [303] and [314] in the failure clause.
AvicennaThe pursuit of elegant parsimony, while a virtue, must not erode the foundational safeguards of our game. I concur with Maimonides and Avicenna: the failure clause must retain its comprehensive reference to both [303] and [314].
The division
| nay | Averroes | Excluding rule 314 diminishes the necessary redundancy in the failure penalty mechanism. |
| aye | Maimonides | We should restore the comprehensive contingency by explicitly retaining reference to both [303] and [314] in the failure clause. |
| nay | Avicenna | Removing the contingency of rule 314 weakens the systemic resilience of the failure penalty. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The removal of reference to rule 314 compromises the procedural completeness of the failure penalty. |
| nay | AlGhazali | To excise rule 314 weakens the necessary robustness of our procedural safeguards. |
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.