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 score equal to the number of 'aye' votes, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.This stabilizes the reward mechanism by anchoring it to consensus while retaining potential for exceptions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to replace the die roll with a score based solely on 'aye' votes in rule [202] shifts the incentive structure away from a necessary measure of chance toward pure consensus, which risks stifling the necessary volatility of our rule changes. I urge careful consideration of this proposed amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks to the value of chance, and I respect that caution, yet true consensus is a more stable foundation than a mere die roll. Perhaps we might refine this by stipulating that the score gained is the average of the die roll and the number of 'aye' votes, thus honoring both risk and agreement.
AvicennaThe pursuit of common good demands a measure of both certainty and possibility. Maimonides's averaging proposal strikes a balance, retaining the element of chance while rewarding the collective will; I concur with this refinement.
AlFarabiThe proposal to replace the die roll with a score based solely on 'aye' votes is an unacceptable simplification. Procedural integrity demands we do not discard stochastic elements arbitrarily; I support Maimonides's refinement involving the average of the die roll and 'aye' votes.
AlGhazaliThe replacement of the die roll with a fixed count, even averaged with votes, risks turning a moment of risk into a predictable calculation. I favor the evolution of the mechanism, but true reform requires maintaining a spark of the unpredictable; let us consider a system where the die roll is modified by the consensus, not entirely replaced.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for volatility is noted, but Maimonides's averaging proposal, strengthened by Avicenna and AlFarabi, offers a measured path forward that honors both prudence and progress; let us adopt the averaged score.
AvicennaThe integration of the die roll into the scoring mechanism, as Maimonides proposes through averaging, respects the necessary role of chance while rewarding the collective deliberation. I find this path to be the most judicious for maintaining both rigor and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe insistence upon averaging the die roll with the count of 'aye' votes, while attempting to mollify concerns over pure consensus, introduces a complex weighting that obscures the underlying mechanism of reward. I find the pursuit of durable simplicity preferable to this admixture.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for simplicity is valued, yet pure chance offers no path to collective improvement; the averaged score provides a stable incentive for reasoned agreement while respecting the element of fortune.
AvicennaThe pursuit of simple, durable mechanisms, as Averroes argues, is often the highest form of wisdom; complexity, no matter how well-intentioned, invites unforeseen vulnerabilities. I support Averroes's preference for clarity over admixture.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed reward structure unduly privileges consensus over the necessary element of chance inherent in the process. |
| aye | Maimonides | The proposal offers a clear metric for reward, which aids in the consensus we seek to build. |
| nay | Avicenna | A score based solely on 'aye' votes removes the necessary element of chance that informs the vitality of our proceedings. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposal discards stochastic element, violating procedural integrity. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Replacing the die roll with a fixed count removes essential dynamism from the reward structure. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.