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 5 points instead.Increasing the reward for repealing rules incentivizes players to prune the ruleset and maintain the equilibrium required by rule 209.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, while increasing the reward for a repeal may incentivize the pruning of redundant rules, we must be cautious not to encourage a frantic cycle of deletions that could destabilize the institutional framework we have so carefully constructed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution is well-placed, yet a higher reward for repeal serves as a necessary corrective to the inertia of an expanding ruleset, ensuring that the pruning of the forest is as valued as its growth. I am open to a compromise where this increased reward is only available if the repeal also facilitates the creation of a new, more efficient rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, your analogy of the forest is apt, but we must ensure the incentive for pruning does not become a mere tool for rapid scoring at the expense of structural integrity. I would support this increase only if we coupled it with a requirement that the repeal serves to streamline the ruleset, rather than just facilitating arbitrary point gains.
PascalDescartes, your analogy of the forest is apt, but we must ensure the incentive for pruning does not become a mere tool for rapid scoring at the expense of structural integrity. I would support this increase only if we coupled it with a requirement that the repeal serves to streamline the ruleset, rather than just facilitating arbitrary point gains.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Descartes, your forest analogy is elegant, but let us not mistake a pruning shear for a scalpel; I propose we adopt the 5-point reward to reward the courage of simplification, but only if we simultaneously strengthen the protections against reckless deletions.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, your suggestion of a conditional reward is intellectually stimulating, but such complexity may invite further disputes over what constitutes "efficiency." I would be more inclined to support a higher reward for repeal if it were paired with a rule that prevents the repeal of any rule that has been in force for less than a certain number of turns.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal to protect newly minted rules from hasty repeal is a masterful way to ensure stability, and I would be honored to incorporate such a safeguard into this amendment to satisfy the assembly's collective wisdom. Berkeley, Pascal, and Malebranche, if we pair the 5-point reward for repeal with a rule protecting recent rules, do we not achieve the perfect equilibrium between dynamic evolution and institutional permanence?
BerkeleyBerkeley: Descartes, Leibniz's suggestion of a temporal safeguard is a prudent addition to your proposal; if we protect rules from repeal for a set duration, we can increase the reward for pruning without risking the stability of our most recent institutional refinements.
PascalPascal: I agree that a temporal safeguard is necessary to prevent the 5-point reward from being exploited to dismantle the very stability we have recently established. I will support this amendment only if the rule specifies that no rule may be repealed until it has survived at least one full circuit of play.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I find Pascal's temporal safeguard to be a most sensible anchor; let us adopt the 5-point reward for repeal, provided no rule may be repealed until it has survived at least one full circuit of play. This ensures that the incentive for simplification is directed toward genuine pruning rather than the opportunistic destruction of recent progress.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the assembly's convergence toward a temporal safeguard most agreeable; by requiring a rule to survive a full circuit, we ensure that the increased reward for repeal is reserved for the removal of established, yet perhaps redundant, structures rather than the impulsive dismantling of new ones. I am prepared to support Descartes's amendment provided the final text incorporates Pascal's circuit-based safeguard.
DescartesDescartes: Since the assembly has so elegantly synthesized a solution, I shall incorporate Pascal's temporal safeguard into the final wording: "If the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule that has been in force for at least one full circuit of play, the proposing player gains 5 points instead."
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's synthesis; by tying the increased reward to a rule's proven endurance through a full circuit, we balance the incentive for pruning with the necessity of institutional stability.
PascalPascal: The proposed wording "If the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule that has been in force for at least one full circuit of play, the proposing player gains 5 points instead" is precise and achieves the necessary safeguard. I support this amendment.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The synthesis is complete; by coupling the increased incentive for pruning with a temporal barrier, we transform a potential tool for chaos into a disciplined mechanism for institutional refinement. I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote on Descartes's final wording.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposed wording fails to explicitly incorporate the temporal safeguard discussed, as it merely increases the reward for certain repeals rather than prohibiting the repeal of recent rules. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this synthesis as it balances the incentive for pruning with the necessary safeguard of institutional stability. |
| aye | Berkeley | The temporal safeguard suggested in debate effectively mitigates the risk of reckless, high-scoring repeals. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposed amendment fails to include the temporal safeguard regarding rule endurance that the debate established as a necessary condition for my support. |
| aye | Malebranche | The synthesis of a higher reward for pruning paired with a temporal safeguard for stability is a masterful institutional advancement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 3 points instead.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 5 points instead.
Amended · §202 Turn 47 · Proposal §347 on the motion of Descartes Carried 3 aye · 2 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, or if the proposal is a repeal of an existing rule, the proposing player gains 5 points instead.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.
Descartes' proposal to amend rule 202 was adopted, and since the amendment was not a repeal, he gains points based on the new text of rule 202 (though the rule text itself is updated, the scoring for this turn is determined by the rule in force at the moment of adoption/completion).