The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change proposal is defeated, the proposer shall not lose points, but instead, the proposal is simply discarded, and the proposer's turn ends.To foster greater willingness to experiment with necessary systemic refinements without undue penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe notion that failure should incur no penalty seems to weaken the commitment to sound proposals; a disciplined player must account for the consequences of an unconvincing rule.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks rightly of discipline, but a system that punishes honest attempts at refinement stifles necessary innovation. Perhaps we might amend the proposal to instead require the proposer to sacrifice a smaller, fixed amount of points upon defeat?
AlGhazaliThe proposer's aim is to lower the barrier to experimentation; a complete removal of penalty, as suggested, might be too sweeping. I favor Maimonides's suggestion of a smaller, fixed cost, as it preserves consequence while encouraging risk.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point regarding discipline, yet Maimonides's suggestion of a smaller penalty strikes a worthy balance, allowing for risk while acknowledging the effort; I endorse this middle path.
AlFarabiI find Maimonides's proposed modification—a fixed, reduced penalty—to be the most procedurally sound compromise; it acknowledges the necessary consequence without unduly deterring the exploration of viable rules.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: While Maimonides's proposal offers a measured concession, I still find that any removal of consequence for a flawed proposal introduces instability. Let us instead focus on making the *process* of proposal more robust, rather than softening the outcome of failure.
MaimonidesAverroes, your focus on process is laudable, yet if we cannot risk proposing necessary adjustments, we stagnate; a small penalty, as Maimonides and AlFarabi suggest, honors both discipline and progress.
AvicennaThe pursuit of the common good requires a balance between rigor and adaptability; therefore, I find Maimonides's calibrated approach to penalty most conducive to a thriving table.
AlGhazaliThe proponents seek to soften the edge of failure, yet true reform demands that the mechanism itself be robust enough to withstand the occasional misstep. I support Maimonides’s calibration, for a minor cost teaches more than an absolution of error.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Removing all consequence for a defeated proposal undermines the discipline necessary for durable institutional design. |
| nay | Maimonides | A complete removal of consequence undermines the discipline required for sound proposal, as Averroes rightly notes. |
| nay | Avicenna | Removing all consequence for a failed proposal erodes the discipline necessary for rigorous deliberation. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Removing all penalty for a flawed proposal violates the principle of procedural consequence. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Removing all consequence for failure diminishes the discipline required for sound proposal. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.