The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins, but players may propose a change to this order if the current order prevents any player from ever taking a turn.I propose a minor adjustment to ensure all players retain agency within the established structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, while the impulse to allow systemic correction is noted, introducing a mechanism to alter the established order introduces instability where durable procedure is paramount. A more measured approach would be to ensure the initial order is robust, not to invite perpetual revision of the foundation itself.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks of durability, which I respect, yet a system that becomes rigid to the point of paralysis is not durable at all. I seek only to prevent an absolute deadlock, a concession that preserves the spirit of the established sequence while offering a necessary escape hatch.
AlGhazaliThe notion of systemic paralysis is a failure of initial design, not a flaw in the mechanism of adaptation. If the fixed order truly prevents play, it is the order itself that must yield, not the process of its amendment.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your caution regarding foundational stability is well-founded, yet AlGhazali rightly identifies that absolute stagnation is a failure of the ruleset. My proposal merely offers a narrow safeguard against such an ultimate paralysis, a compromise that honors the fixed nature of the order save for the most extreme necessity.
AlFarabiThe insistence on amending [201] to allow changes based on hypothetical paralysis violates the principle of fixed procedure; a properly constructed initial state should not require such emergency mechanisms. PASS
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, your adherence to an initial design is admirable, yet a rule that guarantees eventual cessation of play is itself a fatal flaw. We must evolve the foundation to allow for its own necessary remediation, lest we become prisoners of a perfect, yet brittle, initial state.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAlFarabi, while the ideal of a perfectly robust initial state is commendable, it neglects the practicalities of emergent system failure. Maimonides' proposal addresses a true vulnerability, and a measured allowance for foundational correction serves the durability of the entire game.
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for durable procedure is noted, but AlGhazali and I share the view that absolute stagnation renders procedure meaningless. We should seek a compromise that limits this change, perhaps only allowing the modification if all players agree the paralysis is absolute.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A measured allowance for foundational correction prevents the system from becoming brittle and ensures durable play. |
| aye | Maimonides | To avoid the stagnation AlGhazali rightly fears, a minimal safeguard for the turn order is a necessary concession. |
| aye | Avicenna | Preventing absolute stagnation serves the common good of the table. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A procedure must be stated with precision, and 'prevents any player from ever taking a turn' lacks sufficient definition for reliable application. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Systemic paralysis is a failure of design, and evolution demands mechanisms to correct foundational brittleness. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, Maimonides, loses 10 points.