The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, and that change results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer shall receive 5 points instead of the die roll result.To ensure that the pursuit of the common good is not solely driven by immediate point accrual.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal introduces a mechanism that penalizes successful innovation; I must oppose this amendment as it discourages the very necessary experimentation that advances the game's structure. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point regarding the incentive for bold moves; however, this modification seeks merely to temper the excesses of an overly punitive outcome, not to punish success itself. I suggest we amend Avicenna's proposal to only trigger if the net loss exceeds a certain threshold, perhaps 15 points, to maintain a measure of boldness.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we reward constructive change, not punish the outcome's transient state. Maimonides, your suggestion of a threshold is prudent, for absolute penalty stifles necessary risk. I support the concept, but perhaps we should anchor the trigger to a failure to meet a minimal collective gain, rather than a precise point deficit.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAvicenna, I commend your effort to refine the penalty, and Averroes, your concern for incentive is well-founded. Let us agree to adopt Maimonides's threshold concept, but perhaps tie the trigger to the proposed rule change itself causing a negative shift in the *average* score of the table, rather than a fixed deficit.
AvicennaThe stability of the system must be our paramount concern. I agree with Maimonides's inclination to temper the penalty, but tying the trigger to the average score risks infinite regress; a simpler measure, perhaps a net change of less than zero across all players resulting from the adopted change, would preserve fairness.
AlGhazaliAverroes is correct that discouraging innovation is perilous, yet we must not let the pursuit of abstract perfection eclipse the very function of the game. I propose we adopt Avicenna's refined trigger: if the adopted change results in a net loss across the table, the proposer receives 5 points, a concession to stability that still rewards the act of proposal.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlGhazali's compromise strikes a wise balance between caution and encouragement; I support his refinement of the trigger to ensure that the spirit of innovation is not entirely stifled by overly precise accounting.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The notion of limiting the reward to 5 points upon systemic loss, as proposed by myself, honors the risk taken by the proposer while acknowledging the collective consequence. I find this a fair evolution of our incentive structure.
The division
| aye | Averroes | This refinement moderates the potential punitive effect while still rewarding the act of proposing a change. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's refinement strikes a wise balance between caution and encouragement. |
| aye | Avicenna | This refinement balances the incentive for change with the stability of the collective outcome. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed rule alters the fundamental reward mechanism based on aggregate score change, violating procedural purity. |
| aye | AlGhazali | This refinement tempers the penalty while still rewarding the act of legislative endeavor. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a player's proposed rule change is adopted, and that change results in a net loss of points for the proposer across the entire table, the proposer shall receive 5 points instead of the die roll result.
The adopted proposal grants Avicenna 5 points if the change results in a net loss for the proposer, but no existing rule mandates a score change based on the adoption of a proposal, so the proposal's own text is the only source of score change, which is not an existing rule.