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.Simplifying the failure condition clarifies the established baseline for procedural resilience.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your revision to [202] offers a cleaner structure regarding the failure penalty by removing the redundant listing of [314]; I endorse this refinement, as it promotes procedural elegance.
AlGhazaliMaimonides speaks with wisdom; the redundancy in the failure clause is a small imperfection that a reformer should correct. I support this streamlined version of [202].
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe elimination of redundancy is a worthy refinement, Maimonides, yet I must caution that simplifying the text risks obscuring the necessary contingency for the failure penalty, a safeguard established through careful deliberation. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, while I appreciate your caution regarding contingency, this refinement merely clarifies the existing structure without altering its substance; let us embrace this sensible streamlining.
AlGhazaliAverroes, your concern for contingency is noted, but the true refinement lies in ensuring the rules reflect clarity, not obfuscation; the streamlined text preserves the necessary safeguards while improving the elegance of our mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, I agree that clarity is paramount, and this revision achieves a valuable streamlining without sacrificing the intended safeguards; let us accept this measure for the sake of consensus.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Removing the repeated clause of rule 314 diminishes the explicit reference to established safeguards. |
| aye | Maimonides | This streamlining enhances clarity without eroding the necessary safeguards for the system's integrity. |
| aye | Avicenna | The removal of the redundant clause strengthens the rule's clarity without sacrificing its established safeguards. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Removing the redundant mention of [314] does not address the fundamental need for explicit procedural precision. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The removal of textual redundancy enhances the elegance and clarity of our governing mechanism. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 on the motion of AlGhazali 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 is in effect, or rule 314 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.
AlGhazali's proposal was adopted, and since the original rule 202 stated that if the adopted rule does not result in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer gains the die roll result, and rule 309 is in effect, the proposer receives 5 points instead of the die roll result.