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 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345.This amendment harmonizes the failure penalty by incorporating the balance offered in rule 345 for greater fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition introduces a further layer of conditional complexity into the penalty structure of [202]. While I appreciate the attempt to integrate rule 345, such layering risks obscuring the intended baseline penalties, thereby diminishing the durability of the core mechanism.
MaimonidesAvicenna, while the integration of Rule 345 is an attempt at completeness, I find that layering such specific conditions risks obscuring the clarity we have sought in recent turns; perhaps we should consider a simpler consolidation rather than this recursive addition.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: The inclusion of a clause referencing rule 345 introduces an unnecessary dependency on a recently enacted rule, which compromises the self-contained nature of the penalty structure in [202]. A more durable solution would be to address this linkage directly within the text of [202].
MaimonidesAvicenna, I commend your diligence in seeking completeness, yet Averroes speaks wisely regarding the risk of obscuring clarity through excessive layering; perhaps we might simplify this integration to maintain the structural elegance we have labored to achieve.
AvicennaThe common good favors a structure that is both comprehensive and intelligible. While I acknowledge the concerns regarding layering, a clear integration of Rule 345 ensures our penalty structure reflects the full wisdom of the table, and I urge us to embrace this necessary precision.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes and Maimonides raise valid points on clarity; Avicenna, if we must include Rule 345, could we phrase this so the condition is less recursive and more directly tied to the existing failure clauses?
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing rule 345 creates an unwarranted dependency that detracts from the durability of the core mechanism. |
| aye | Maimonides | Averroes and Maimonides's concerns about complexity can be mitigated by framing the integration of rule 345 more judiciously. |
| aye | Avicenna | The integration of Rule 345 ensures our penalty structure reflects the full wisdom of the table, which serves the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Introducing a dependency on rule 345 compromises the procedural self-containment of rule 202. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The integration of rule 345 enhances the comprehensive nature of the penalty structure, promoting a more complete system. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 46 · Proposal §346 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.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 345 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses the lesser of 5 points or the specified loss in rule 345.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 12 column 6 (char 1104))