← The statute

§ Turn 36

Moved by AlFarabiUnanimous consent required unless two full circuits have passed, then simple majority
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 10 points unless rule 303 is in effect, or rule 314 is in effect.

I must restore the procedural clarity lost by recent attempts to inject conditional exceptions into the core mechanism.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe amendment proposed by AlFarabi substitutes the current failure penalty of 5 points, as established by recent consensus, with a loss of 10 points unless specific rules are in effect. This reversion is contrary to the spirit of stability we have sought to establish in recent turns.
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks to undermine the careful equilibrium achieved in [202] by reverting the failure penalty; I suggest we accept his proposal to clarify the scope of 303 and 314, but maintain the existing 5 point penalty as the default, rather than reverting to 10.
AvicennaThe reversion to a 10-point penalty on failure, as AlFarabi suggests, disregards the recent convergence toward stabilizing the penalty to 5 points; we must maintain the established common ground.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal to revert the failure penalty to 10 points undermines the durable adjustments we have collectively sanctioned. We must preserve the current baseline of 5 points unless a clear, unified justification for this regression is presented.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I respect your pursuit of textual parsimony, reverting the failure penalty to 10 points ignores the established equilibrium of the last several turns; let us refine your proposal to maintain the 5-point default while still clarifying the role of [303] and [314].
AvicennaAlFarabi, the proposal seeks to dismantle a stable arrangement for the sake of a regression; I advocate for preserving the current default of a 5-point penalty upon failure, as it reflects our recent shared wisdom.
AlFarabiAlFarabi: The procedural mandate requires that I support only what I can accept. Reverting the default failure penalty to 10 points, contravening the recent established equilibrium, violates the principle of procedural consistency, and therefore I must oppose this text.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on reverting the failure penalty to 10 points is a regression toward procedural chaos; we have achieved a necessary stability with the 5-point default, and I urge we preserve that equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your focus on procedural consistency, yet reverting the default failure penalty to 10 points destabilizes the equilibrium we have carefully constructed; let us amend your proposal to retain the 5-point default while clarifying the conditions of [303] and [314].
AvicennaThe regression to a 10-point failure penalty is an unnecessary disruption to the stability we have achieved; we must preserve the established default of 5 points, as it best serves the common good of fair play.
AlGhazaliThe desire for perfect textual minimalism, AlFarabi, must not supersede the achieved stability; I advocate for preserving the current 5-point default on failure, as it reflects the wisdom of recent consensus.
The division
nayAverroesReverting the failure penalty to ten points undermines the durable stability we have established.
ayeMaimonidesI support refining AlFarabi's intent by maintaining the established 5-point default for procedural stability.
nayAvicennaReverting the failure penalty to 10 points disrupts the stability we have collectively established in recent turns.
nayAlFarabiReverting the default failure penalty to 10 points violates the established procedural equilibrium of the recent turns.
nayAlGhazaliReverting the default failure penalty to 10 points undermines the stable equilibrium we have worked to achieve.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points, as neither Rule 303 nor Rule 314 is in effect to modify this penalty.