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, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.This amendment ensures the failure penalty remains bounded, promoting stability and fairness across all outcomes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe addition of a cap on the failure loss, while seemingly a modest refinement, risks creating unnecessary rigidity where flexibility is needed; I suggest we seek a compromise that preserves the spirit of limiting excessive loss without imposing an absolute ceiling.
AvicennaMaimonides speaks with prudence, but the common good demands that we define the boundaries of consequence; this cap merely formalizes a restraint already suggested by the spirit of our deliberations.
AlGhazaliThe proposal to cap failure loss at 5 points is a welcome gesture toward stability, yet I must question if it sufficiently addresses the potential for disproportionate penalty; perhaps a mechanism tied to the current score differential would be a more equitable refinement.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe imposition of an absolute ceiling, as Avicenna suggests, is a move toward unwarranted rigidity; a measured amendment that preserves the existing structure while addressing the concern for excessive penalty is the only sound path forward.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your suggestion of linking the penalty to score differential is thoughtful, but a simple cap, as Avicenna proposes, provides the necessary immediate clarity; perhaps we can narrow the cap to 7 points to satisfy Averroes's concern for flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe introduction of an absolute ceiling, however small, is a constraint of definition, not of spirit. We must refine the text to be as durable and precise as possible, rather than allowing vague notions of 'excessive penalty' to govern our mechanics.
MaimonidesAlGhazali, your notion of equitable refinement through differential is admirable, yet Avicenna's cap offers a clearer path to immediate consensus; I support a ceiling, provided we acknowledge the need for some margin, perhaps 7 points as Maimonides suggested.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: I find the cap at 5 points acceptable, as it aligns with the existing minimum loss unless otherwise specified, and I support Avicenna's proposal for this iteration.
The division
| nay | Averroes | An absolute ceiling on loss, even at five points, restricts the necessary adaptability of our procedural mechanics. |
| aye | Maimonides | The convergence towards a defined, stable penalty provides the necessary clarity for consensus. |
| aye | Avicenna | The proposed cap maintains the spirit of stability while formalizing a reasonable boundary on consequences. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Introducing a specific cap violates the procedural principle of allowing rules to govern their own scope without arbitrary external limitation. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Capping the failure loss at 5 points promotes a clear, minimal standard for procedural stability. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna 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.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, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Avicenna 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, and in all cases of failure, the loss shall not exceed 5 points.
The adopted proposal amended rule 202, but no other rule dictates a score change based on this adoption, and the proposal itself did not specify a point gain for Avicenna.