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 gains a number of points equal to the number of 'aye' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.I propose linking rewards to consensus, a more stable measure than chance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal shifts the reward from chance to consensus, which, while tempting for its perceived stability, undermines the dynamism inherent in rule changes. I caution against tethering progression solely to the majority's immediate approval.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a fair point regarding the dynamism, yet stability is not synonymous with stagnation. We can retain the element of fortune, perhaps by tying the points gained to a die roll *modified* by the consensus, to satisfy both the spirit of chance and the need for steady progression.
AlGhazaliAverroes speaks of dynamism, yet true dynamism lies in the *capacity* to change, not merely the unpredictable reward of a single throw. If consensus itself is the metric of success, we reward thoughtful agreement, a far more stable and justifiable currency than a capricious die.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe shift to consensus-based scoring, as Maimonides proposes, is a durable improvement over pure chance, yet simply replacing the die roll removes an essential element of contingency. I support a modification that integrates the die roll with the vote count to ensure both stability and the possibility of unexpected fortune.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of contingency; I propose we honor that spirit by modifying my text: the proposer gains a die roll result, which is then *modified* by the number of 'aye' votes, thus blending both stability and fortune.
AvicennaThe integration of the die roll with the vote count, as Maimonides refines, seems the most judicious path; it honors the need for measured progression while retaining a necessary measure of chance for the common good of the game.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to marry chance and consensus, while superficially balanced, risks creating a convoluted mechanism that obscures the true value of a successful reform. A clear metric—the reward for achieving consensus—is a stronger foundation for evolution than a dual calculation.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of modifying the reward to incorporate both chance and consensus risks creating a rule so intricate it defies simple adherence, which runs counter to the goal of durable institutions. A clear metric, as AlGhazali suggests, provides a more stable bedrock for play.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding clarity, yet AlGhazali's insistence on singular metrics overlooks the value of tempering certainty with the unpredictable grace of fate. I propose we accept Avicenna's view: the integrated system, blending the die roll and the vote count, offers the most comprehensive path forward.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Tying reward solely to consensus neglects the necessary element of contingency in advancement. |
| aye | Maimonides | This proposal offers a balanced metric that honors consensus while allowing for a clearer path to progression. |
| aye | Avicenna | This integration honors both the need for measured progression and the spirit of contingency for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding consensus removes the necessary element of procedural contingency inherent in chance. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Consensus is a superior and more justifiable currency for progress than the caprice of a die. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.