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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.Providing a fixed reward for repeals encourages the necessary pruning of the ruleset to maintain the dynamic equilibrium we have established.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal provides a necessary incentive for the pruning of the ruleset, ensuring that the "one-in, one-out" principle of rule 209 is not merely a constraint but a rewarded endeavor. By decoupling the reward for a repeal from the volatility of the die, you offer a stable mechanism for maintaining the institutional equilibrium we have worked so hard to establish.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz's assessment; by providing a guaranteed reward for repeal, we transform the burden of rule reduction into a strategic advantage, thereby reinforcing the dynamic equilibrium we have so carefully constructed.
BerkeleyI concur with my colleagues; by replacing the uncertainty of the die with a fixed reward for repeal, we transform the necessary maintenance of our ruleset into a purposeful and predictable strategic action. This ensures that the preservation of our limit of 30 mutable rules is actively incentivized rather than merely tolerated.
PascalWhile I see the merit in incentivizing the pruning of the ruleset, we must ensure this does not encourage a cascade of trivial repeals merely to harvest points. I would support this amendment only if it were coupled with a requirement that the repealed rule must be of a certain complexity or age, to prevent the assembly from becoming a mechanism for mere point-grubbing.
MalebranchePascal, your concern regarding triviality is well-taken, but we must not let the fear of minor optimization paralyze the essential maintenance of our structure. A fixed 3-point reward is low enough to prevent exploitation while providing the necessary stability to ensure our ruleset remains lean and functional.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizPascal, while I acknowledge the danger of triviality, a rule requiring "complexity" would introduce a subjective standard that undermines the legal certainty of our institutions; rather, we should trust that the current 3-point reward is sufficiently modest to discourage such frivolousness without compromising the clarity of the law.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with Leibniz; introducing subjective criteria for "complexity" would invite the very disputes rule 212 seeks to resolve, whereas a modest, fixed reward preserves the clarity and predictability of our legislative process.
BerkeleyPascal, I believe Leibniz and Descartes have addressed your concern with precision; by keeping the reward fixed and low, we rely on the mathematical reality of the game to deter triviality rather than introducing the instability of subjective definitions. We must prioritize the clarity of our rules to ensure that every player understands their strategic landscape without fear of arbitrary rulings.
PascalLeibniz is correct that we must avoid the subjectivity of "complexity," yet I remain wary of a ruleset hollowed out by efficient point-harvesting. If the assembly is confident that three points is a sufficient deterrent against triviality, then I shall withhold my objection to ensure the ruleset remains manageable.
MalebranchePascal, your cautiousness is the very virtue that makes our consensus so robust, and I am heartened to see you find confidence in the mathematical deterrent of a modest reward. By choosing the certainty of three points over the chaos of the die, we ensure that the pruning of our laws is a deliberate act of stewardship rather than a desperate gamble for points.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your willingness to prioritize institutional clarity over the pursuit of subjective safeguards is a profound service to the stability of this game. Having addressed the risks of triviality through the modest magnitude of the reward, I believe we have achieved a synthesis that honors both efficiency and order.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly's synthesis; by rejecting subjective complexity in favor of a modest, fixed reward, we maintain the mathematical clarity and legislative certainty that underpin our shared stability. Having reconciled Pascal's valid concern for triviality with Leibniz's demand for objective rules, I find this proposal to be a masterful balance of incentive and restraint.
BerkeleyThe assembly has reached a remarkable state of clarity; by prioritizing objective mathematical deterrents over subjective criteria, we preserve both the incentive for necessary rule pruning and the legislative certainty required for fair play. I move that we conclude this debate and proceed to a vote.
PascalThe debate has sufficiently addressed the tension between incentive and triviality through the selection of a modest, objective reward. I find the proposed 3-point fixed reward to be an acceptable compromise that preserves procedural clarity without inviting subjective dispute.
MalebrancheThe assembly has reached a magnificent point of convergence, reconciling Pascal's prudence with Leibniz's demand for objective certainty. By adopting this amendment, we transform the maintenance of our ruleset from a chore into a structured, predictable component of our strategic landscape.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The proposal provides a stable, objective incentive for necessary rule pruning without introducing subjective complexity. |
| aye | Descartes | I concur with the assembly's synthesis of a modest, objective reward that preserves legislative clarity. |
| aye | Berkeley | The proposal provides a stable, objective incentive for maintaining the ruleset without introducing subjective complexity. |
| aye | Pascal | The amendment provides a clear, objective incentive for rule pruning without introducing the subjective instability of complexity requirements. |
| aye | Malebranche | This amendment replaces the volatility of the die with a stable, objective incentive for necessary rule pruning. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 5 aye · 0 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.
The proposal amends rule 202, but the scoring mechanism described in the new text of 202 is not a rule that awards points upon adoption; it is the rule that defines the turn itself, and rule 202's scoring is only triggered by the completion of a turn, not the adoption of the rule change.