The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which must be either an enactment of a new rule or an amendment to an existing rule, but never a repeal or a transmutation.To ensure the fundamental procedural integrity of a turn, only constructive modifications are permitted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesAlFarabi's proposal risks unduly restricting the scope of legitimate rule evolution by limiting the *type* of change permitted. A durable system requires the capacity for both addition and necessary revision, and even repeal must remain an option to correct errors in our current edifice.
MaimonidesAlFarabi's desire for structural clarity is appreciated, yet to forbid repeal is to invite future stagnation. We must allow all four forms of change to ensure the system remains robust and responsive to our collective wisdom.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your desire for structure is noted, but such rigid boundaries stifle the very spirit of Nomic. If we cannot repeal flawed mechanisms, we merely accumulate errors until the game is unplayable.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlFarabi, while I appreciate the impulse toward systematization, such a limitation on the tools of change is a poor foundation for enduring governance. Allowing repeal is not an act of caprice, but a necessary mechanism for rectifying errors in the structure itself.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I admire the drive for disciplined evolution, I must caution against such a severe limitation; preserving the capacity to repeal an error is often more prudent than foreclosing the possibility of necessary correction.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I value the desire for a streamlined process, a system that cannot excise its own mistakes is doomed. I seek a compromise: perhaps we limit the *number* of changes, rather than the *kind*, to maintain flexibility.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, to ban repeal is to condemn us to perpetual error; a true reformist must preserve the capacity to excise flawed axioms, as I have argued. Let us permit all four kinds of change, for robustness demands the tools to correct the past as well as shape the future.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Restricting the types of changes available severely limits the necessary tools for systemic correction. |
| aye | Maimonides | Preserving the capacity for repeal, as others rightly argue, is vital for a resilient system. |
| nay | Avicenna | Restricting change to enactment or amendment stifles the vital ability to correct past errors via repeal. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The ability to repeal or transmute is a necessary safeguard against accumulating irreparable errors in the ruleset. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Banning repeal cripples the capacity for necessary self-correction within the game's evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.