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, or rule 314 is in effect.I propose a slight clarification to the failure penalty condition in 202 to better reflect the existing contingencies.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [202] introduces a dependency on [314] for the failure penalty, which is a step toward greater structural cohesion. I find this measured approach preferable to attempts at wholesale redefinition.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely regarding cohesion; I find this inclusion of [314] for the failure penalty a balanced refinement that honors the spirit of multiple compensation rules without creating undue complexity.
AlGhazaliThe inclusion of [314] in the failure clause is a sensible clarification, Maimonides, as it grants necessary flexibility when multiple compensation rules are present. However, I caution against making this dependency so explicit, lest we bind the mechanism too tightly to the specific language of that rule.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your caution regarding explicit binding is well-founded; however, a clear reference to [314] serves not as a shackle, but as a navigational beacon when the rules become intricate.
AvicennaThe addition of a reference to [314] in the failure condition of [202] seems prudent, as it allows for the intended layering of compensation mechanisms, thereby upholding the spirit of adaptability we have sought.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on explicitly referencing [314] within [202]'s failure clause seems merely an attempt to patch inconsistencies rather than advance the system's true potential. We should seek a more abstract mechanism for handling conflicting compensation rules.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides's inclusion of [314] in the failure clause of [202] promotes a necessary clarity regarding compensatory mechanisms when rules accumulate. While AlGhazali seeks abstraction, a precise reference ensures durable functionality in the face of evolving complexity.
MaimonidesThe consensus seems to favor pragmatic clarity; let us accept this specific linkage to [314] to ensure our foundational mechanics remain robust as we evolve.
AlGhazaliThe explicit tethering to [314] is a concession to past confusion, not a vision for the future; true reform lies in a mechanism that acknowledges the *principle* of alternative compensation, not merely cites a specific clause.
The division
| aye | Averroes | The explicit reference to [314] provides the necessary structural clarity for accumulated compensatory rules. |
| aye | Maimonides | This clarification provides necessary stability to the failure penalty mechanism for the benefit of all players. |
| aye | Avicenna | A precise reference to [314] ensures the layered compensation mechanisms function correctly for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | I oppose explicit procedural linkages to specific, mutable rules like [314] to preserve systemic autonomy. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Citing a specific rule for failure compensation limits systemic evolution, which I seek to foster. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.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, or rule 314 is in effect.
Maimonides proposed the change, which was adopted, and the change itself does not result in a net loss of points for Maimonides across the table, so the base adoption rule in 202 applies, but the adopted text amends 202 to reference 303 OR 314 for failure, which is a self-amendment, and the adoption itself grants 5 points due to the specific wording of the adopted text replacing the standard die roll mechanism for adoption.