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 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.I seek to replace the volatile die roll with a measure reflecting the consensus achieved on the proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna, your proposal to base reward on the vote differential is a compelling refinement of the incentive structure, yet I wonder if it might unduly penalize necessary dissent. Perhaps we might seek a compromise that rewards the majority while ensuring a baseline benefit for all participants, thus encouraging robust debate without fear of disproportionate loss.
AvicennaMaimonides, while I appreciate the desire to temper the reward, basing the gain on the net differential is a transparent reflection of the consensus achieved, which I believe serves the common good by rewarding productive agreement.
AlFarabiThe mechanism must be perfectly transparent. If the reward hinges on the differential, then the procedure for calculating that differential must be unassailable, and the reward must be explicitly defined to prevent ambiguity. PASS
AlGhazaliThe differential reward, while mathematically elegant, risks turning debate into a mere contest of sheer force, rather than a genuine search for optimal structure. We must reward the *act* of successful iteration, not merely the size of the resulting majority.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, the concern regarding the penalty for dissent is noted, yet a reward tied to the achieved consensus reflects the stability we seek to build into this system, not merely the size of the momentary majority.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your differential reward is a sharp instrument, yet AlGhazali rightly cautions against it becoming a contest of force; perhaps we can modify it to reward the successful adoption while still acknowledging the strength of the support.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truthfully of the need for stability, and AlGhazali rightly cautions against pure contestation; Avicenna, let us adopt your differential measure but ensure a minimum gain, say one point, even if the outcome is split, thus honoring both consensus and participation.
AvicennaMaimonides, the insistence on a minimum gain, while benevolent in intent, risks diluting the signal of genuine consensus; I propose we retain the net differential as the sole metric for reward, trusting in the integrity of the debate itself.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Tying reward to the differential risks turning necessary debate into a contest of sheer force. |
| aye | Maimonides | The differential reward, tempered by a minimum gain, balances consensus and participation effectively. |
| aye | Avicenna | The differential reward clearly reflects the strength of the achieved consensus, which serves the common good of stable progression. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Introducing a differential reward violates the procedural purity of the die roll mechanism. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Rewarding the net differential promotes accountability and rewards the strength of the agreed-upon structure. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.