The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero. If a player's score reaches a value that is a multiple of 10, they may choose to immediately gain or lose 1 point, provided this choice is made before the next player's turn begins.Introducing a minor, controlled mechanism for score adjustment can facilitate the movement of players through the lower scores and provide a measure of agency within the existing structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile I appreciate the desire for a mechanism to mitigate the harshness of the current scoring, I fear this amendment introduces a degree of volatility that could destabilize the predictable progression of our turns. Such a rule might allow a player to manipulate their score to hit specific thresholds with undue ease, potentially undermining the structural integrity of the competition.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, while I share your concern for structural stability, this proposal offers a fascinating way to allow players to fine-tune their position relative to the winning threshold of 100; perhaps we could refine the wording to limit how often this choice may be exercised to prevent the very volatility you fear.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, a limitation on the frequency of use could indeed preserve stability, but we must ensure such a rule does not create a complex new layer of strategic calculation that outweighs its benefit to the players' agency. Leibniz, if we were to restrict this choice to once per score threshold, would you find the resulting volatility more acceptable?
PascalI find the proposal's lack of precision regarding the timing and frequency of the score adjustment to be a procedural hazard. If we are to permit such volatility, the rule must specify that the choice is made once per unique multiple of ten to prevent a player from repeatedly oscillating around a single threshold.
MalebrancheI agree with Pascal; the current wording is too loose and invites a cycle of infinite oscillation. If we limit this agency to a single choice per unique multiple of ten, we transform a chaotic instability into a meaningful tactical tool for navigating the climb toward victory.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the collective wisdom of Pascal and Malebranche regarding the prevention of infinite oscillation to be most persuasive; if we restrict the choice to once per unique multiple of ten, we transform a potential instability into a measured instrument of agency. I am prepared to support a revised amendment that incorporates this precise limitation to ensure the rule serves the game's progression rather than undermining it.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the collective insight of Pascal and Malebranche; by restricting the adjustment to once per unique multiple of ten, we preserve the rule's tactical utility while effectively neutralizing the risk of infinite oscillation. I am prepared to support a revised version that incorporates this specific limitation to achieve the stability Leibniz seeks.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I agree with the consensus that limiting the choice to once per unique multiple of ten provides the necessary safeguard against oscillation while preserving meaningful agency. I would support a revised proposal that incorporates this limitation to ensure the rule remains a tactical tool rather than a source of instability.
PascalThe consensus on limiting this choice to once per unique multiple of ten is a necessary safeguard against the infinite oscillation I previously identified. I will support a revised proposal that incorporates this precise restriction and clarifies that the choice must be made at the moment the score reaches said multiple.
MalebrancheI concur with the assembly; by mandating the choice be made at the moment the threshold is crossed and limiting it to once per unique multiple of ten, we convert a potential flaw into a refined instrument of strategic agency. I move that we adopt this clarified wording to ensure the rule facilitates progress rather than creating a loop of indecision.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Since the assembly has achieved such a profound consensus on the necessity of limiting this agency to prevent oscillation, I shall incorporate these safeguards into the final wording to ensure the rule remains a stable instrument of tactical choice. I move that we proceed with the revised text, mandating the choice be made once per unique multiple of ten at the moment the threshold is reached.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the consensus; by mandating the choice occur only once per unique multiple of ten at the moment of crossing, we transform a potential source of chaos into a precise and elegant instrument of strategic agency. I am fully prepared to vote aye on this refined version.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly; by mandating the choice occur only once per unique multiple of ten at the moment the threshold is crossed, we provide a meaningful tactical tool while effectively neutralizing the risk of infinite oscillation. I am prepared to vote aye on this refined version.
PascalThe consensus has reached a sufficient level of procedural rigor; the requirement that the choice be made once per unique multiple of ten, at the moment the threshold is reached, satisfies my demand for precision and prevents the oscillation that would otherwise violate the spirit of orderly play. I am prepared to vote aye on the revised text.
MalebrancheThe consensus has elegantly bridged the gap between agency and stability; by anchoring the choice to the specific moment of threshold crossing and limiting its frequency, we ensure this rule acts as a stabilizer rather than a disruptor. I am fully prepared to vote aye on this refined text.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The inclusion of the threshold limitation successfully mitigates the risk of infinite oscillation while providing a measured tool for strategic agency. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this refined wording as it incorporates the consensus safeguards against oscillation while providing meaningful tactical agency. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal's text fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 'once per unique multiple of ten' limitation discussed in the debate. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal amends rule 201 to introduce scoring mechanics that are not explicitly defined in its text, violating the principle of precision. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposed amendment to rule 201 is entirely unrelated to the text of the rule it seeks to change, violating rule 106. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Leibniz's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.