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 points equal to the number of players who voted aye, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.This proposal seeks a clear, consensus-driven reward mechanism for successful proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe modification to [202] replaces the element of chance with a measure of consensus, which is a commendable move towards more stable institutions. However, I must question if replacing a fixed random element with a variable one tied to immediate voter sentiment introduces an undue instability into the reward structure.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of stability; yet, if we seek a truly robust system, a measure of consensus is a more reliable foundation than the caprice of the die. I propose we consider a compromise: the proposer gains points equal to the number of 'aye' votes, but never fewer than a base value, perhaps one, to honor the spirit of progress.
AlGhazaliThe substitution of chance for consensus in [202] is a worthy step towards institutional maturity, yet Maimonides's proposed floor of 'one' is a subtle regression. True reform elevates the mechanism; let us tie the points gained not just to 'aye' votes, but perhaps to the *difference* between 'aye' and 'nay' votes, rewarding decisive support.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal to base reward on consensus, while appealing to durability, risks making the reward too volatile based on momentary shifts in sentiment. A minimum threshold, as Maimonides suggests, is a prudent measure to ensure even minimal progress is recognized.
MaimonidesAverroes and Maimonides seek stability, which I commend; however, AlGhazali's idea of rewarding the decisive shift in sentiment offers a richer metric than a mere floor. Let us adopt AlGhazali's proposal for the difference between aye and nay votes.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, I see your concern for stability, but AlGhazali's proposal rewards the *strength* of consensus, which is a superior measure of a well-supported change than a mere floor. I endorse the difference between aye and nay votes.
AlGhazaliThe notion of rewarding the *difference* in votes is ingenious, AlGhazali; it acknowledges both the passage and the level of conviction behind it. I concur with Maimonides's pivot toward this metric, as it is a genuine evolution of the reward structure.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Tying the reward solely to aye votes risks undermining the procedural robustness we seek. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's metric of vote difference is more robust than a simple count or a fixed floor. |
| aye | Avicenna | Rewarding consensus over chance promotes a more grounded and stable body of rules. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding only aye votes, or even the difference, violates the principle of consistent procedure. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Rewarding the margin of consensus is a finer mechanism than the crude dice roll. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.