The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer 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.This clarifies the baseline point gain mechanism to ensure systemic stability and predictability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed text closely mirrors existing mechanisms, yet its scope is overly broad; a targeted amendment to existing clauses would serve the established structure more robustly.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a fair point regarding structure, yet this proposal seeks to create a singular, comprehensive baseline for point gain, which I believe offers necessary clarity to the disparate mechanisms we have accrued.
AvicennaThe common good demands a predictable framework for rewards. While Averroes seeks to preserve existing fragments, I argue that a single, clear principle for point gain, as proposed, promotes greater systemic elegance than a patchwork of exceptions.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes and Avicenna both speak to the virtue of order; I see merit in Avicenna's desire for a singular principle, yet I propose we temper its breadth by ensuring it does not inadvertently override the specific safeguards we have painstakingly woven into Rule [202].
AvicennaThe elegance of a comprehensive principle, as Avicenna suggests, must be tempered by the wisdom of established safeguards, as Maimonides rightly notes; I support a nuanced approach that synthesizes clarity without sacrificing existing protections.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposed rule, while ambitious in its scope, risks undermining the careful layering of exceptions that grants our system its resilience; I advocate for a targeted amendment to [202] rather than this sweeping redefinition.
MaimonidesI find the synthesis proposed by Avicenna and Maimonides to be the most judicious path; let us refine this broad rule to explicitly preserve the exceptions already deemed necessary for procedural integrity.
AvicennaThe wisdom of synthesis is the highest good. I concur with Maimonides; we must ensure this principle of reward is clear, yet it must not diminish the safeguards that have proven necessary for our common stability.
The division
| nay | Averroes | This sweeping rule risks eroding the durability provided by our carefully layered exceptions to point gain. |
| aye | Maimonides | This proposal synthesizes the drive for clarity with the necessity of preserving existing safeguards, a balanced approach I favor. |
| aye | Avicenna | This proposal offers the systemic elegance and clarity that promotes the common good of the table. |
| nay | AlFarabi | This proposal attempts to create a blanket rule for point gain, which conflicts with the precise mechanisms already established in Rule [202]. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A unified principle for point gain promotes systemic elegance, which is a necessary evolution for the game's clarity. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §349 Turn 49 · Proposal §349 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, the proposer 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.
The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains points according to rule 202, which is modified by the adopted rule's text, but since the adopted rule's text is identical to the default mechanism described in 202, the base rule 202 applies, awarding 1 point (assuming a die roll of 1, as no die roll is provided, and the adopted rule's text is essentially a restatement of the default mechanism, which is the plainest reading when no specific roll is given).