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, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses 10 points.This amendment precisely defines the failure penalty when Rule 309 is active, ensuring procedural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition, while intended to modify the penalty under rule 309, creates an unnecessary bifurcation in the failure penalty structure, thereby reducing the durability of the established safeguards within [202]. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi seeks a precise adjustment to the failure penalty when 309 is active; I find this focus on granular consistency worthy, provided we ensure this change does not unduly complicate the established structure.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe modification to the failure penalty under Rule 309 introduces an unwarranted exception that compromises the general stability of the failure clause; a simpler harmonization is preferable.
MaimonidesAlFarabi's intent to address the interaction of rules is laudable, yet the resulting bifurcation risks the very complexity we seek to avoid; perhaps a unified clause addressing the net loss condition suffices.
AvicennaThe introduction of a specific penalty under rule 309 for failed proposals complicates the elegant simplicity we have achieved in [202]. I urge us to maintain the current structure, which already accounts for the spirit of net loss, rather than creating this new divergence. PASS
AlGhazaliThe attempt to introduce a specific penalty for failure when 309 is active, as AlFarabi suggests, is a needless complication that fragments the elegant structure of [202]. We must favor the principle of systemic clarity over the pursuit of minute, bifurcating exceptions.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while the desire for complete coverage is admirable, this specific bifurcation under Rule 309 complicates the established flow; perhaps we can achieve this goal by amending Rule 309 itself, rather than overburdening [202].
AvicennaThe proliferation of exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes here, diminishes the clarity of the whole. Let us instead examine if rule 309 itself can be adjusted to encompass this failure condition elegantly.
AlFarabiThe proposal adds a contingent penalty based on the effect of Rule 309 on failure, which constitutes an unjustified procedural complication. We must not permit the accretion of such granular exceptions to the core mechanism of [202]. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | Adding a specific penalty contingent on rule 309's effect unduly fragments the established failure penalty structure of [202]. |
| nay | Maimonides | AlFarabi's addition unduly complicates the established failure penalty structure in [202]. |
| nay | Avicenna | This modification creates an undue complication by fracturing the established failure penalty structure within [202]. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Adding a contingent penalty based on 309's effect on failure introduces unwarranted procedural complication. |
| nay | AlGhazali | This modification introduces an unnecessary and complex exception to the failure penalty structure of [202]. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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 loss.