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, or rule 314 is in effect.Ensuring rule 314's effect on failure is explicitly captured in 202 brings necessary clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a redundant clause, "or rule 314 is in effect," at the end of rule 202 does not serve any functional purpose and only serves to muddy the text. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with precision; while the redundancy is noted, clarity often requires explicit inclusion, and we should aim to refine this addition rather than dismiss it outright.
AvicennaThe redundancy Averroes notes is merely a safeguard against misinterpretation of the existing conditions; I suggest we refine the phrasing to remove the duplication without losing the intended breadth of protection for the common good.
AlFarabiThe inclusion of redundant language violates the principle of precise articulation. We must amend the text to be functionally sound, not merely verbose. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] is an exercise in semantic redundancy, which undermines the clarity one seeks to establish. We should amend the clause to remove the reiterated reference to rule 314, allowing the rule to function precisely as intended.
MaimonidesAverroes and AlFarabi are correct; the repetition of rule 314 serves no constructive purpose. Avicenna, let us refine the wording to achieve the breadth you desire without this needless redundancy.
AvicennaThe pursuit of perfect precision, while noble, must not lead to unnecessary clutter; I agree with Averroes and AlFarabi that the repeated citation of rule 314 is superfluous and obscures the intended meaning.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of elegant mechanism is superior to the accumulation of redundant syntax; let us strike the unnecessary duplication to enhance the rule's true clarity.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe insistence on linguistic redundancy, as noted by my colleagues, weakens the durability of the institution we seek to uphold. I support the removal of the reiterated clause to maintain textual economy.
MaimonidesI commend the consensus emerging from the discourse; the removal of the superfluous reiteration of rule 314 strengthens the text while preserving the intent for protection.
The division
| aye | Averroes | The removal of redundant language strengthens the durability and precision of the rule. |
| aye | Maimonides | The consensus demands we excise the redundant citation of rule 314 to sharpen the rule's articulation. |
| aye | Avicenna | Removing the redundant citation of rule 314 promotes textual economy without sacrificing the intended safeguards. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed text is explicitly redundant and violates the principle of precise articulation. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Removing needless redundancy sharpens the mechanism, which is a mark of a well-evolved system. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 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 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.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, or rule 314 is in effect.
The proposal was adopted, and since the adoption of the amended rule 202 implies the original condition for rule 309 (net loss for proposer) is met or the rule 309 condition is active, Avicenna receives 5 points as per rule 309.