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, unless rule 309 is in effect, in which case the proposer loses 5 points.This precise amendment restores a logical condition regarding the failure penalty when rule 309 is active.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe inclusion of an exception for rule 309 within the failure clause of [202] introduces an undue complexity, suggesting a lack of trust in the primary mechanisms already established.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for simplicity is noted, yet AlFarabi seeks to ensure comprehensive coverage, and such detail prevents unforeseen ambiguities down the line.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your addition is a tangle of caveats; true refinement lies not in layering exceptions, but in simplifying the foundation so that the rules serve the spirit of the game, not the complexity of its bookkeeping.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe insertion of a further exception based on Rule 309 within the failure clause of [202] appears to violate the principle of measured amendment, creating an unnecessary knot of contingencies. PASS
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your diligence in seeking complete coverage, the nesting of exceptions, as Averroes rightly notes, risks obscuring the primary flow of the rule. Could we perhaps consolidate the exceptions to ensure greater clarity for all players?
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi, I commend your thoroughness in seeking to cover every contingency, yet as Maimonides, I seek the clearest path to consensus; let us strive to streamline this nesting of exceptions for mutual understanding.
AvicennaThe layering of exceptions, as AlFarabi proposes, does indeed obscure the essential flow of the turn, Maimonides; we must seek a synthesis that respects both thoroughness and intelligibility. PASS
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while your diligence in exhaustive coverage is noted, such nesting only serves to obscure the path to consensus; a more elegant rule simplifies the framework for all. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | The addition of an exception referencing rule 309 in the failure clause unnecessarily complicates the established structure of [202]. |
| aye | Maimonides | Consolidating the exceptions, as suggested, honors the pursuit of thoroughness while improving clarity for the collective. |
| nay | Avicenna | The nested exception for rule 309 in the failure clause creates an unnecessary and confusing layer of contingency. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The nested exception referencing rule 309 in the failure clause introduces unacceptable procedural clutter. |
| nay | AlGhazali | The nested exception for rule 309 in the failure clause adds unnecessary complexity, contrary to true refinement. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal failed, so AlFarabi loses 5 points according to rule 202, as neither rule 303 nor rule 314 is in effect.