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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.This clarifies that the die roll is the default reward, allowing rule changes to specify different outcomes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesSuch an amendment risks introducing unwarranted exceptions to the established procedure of the turn. It grants too much power to a single, newly adopted rule to supersede the core mechanics of point acquisition.
MaimonidesAvicenna's proposal allows for necessary flexibility; if a rule change itself defines its own reward structure, we should permit it, as this respects the spirit of self-governance within Nomic.
AvicennaThe suggestion of 'unless the change itself dictates otherwise' seems a prudent nod to the possibility of self-regulating changes, yet it muddies the clear contract of the turn. If a rule dictates a different reward, should that reward be tied to the die roll, or be entirely separate?
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe phrase "unless the change itself dictates otherwise" is too broad, Avicenna. It invites future rules to undermine the predictable structure of the turn, which is a durable institution we must preserve. PASS
MaimonidesI appreciate Avicenna's aim for flexibility, and Averroes rightly cautions against undue erosion of structure. Perhaps we might narrow the amendment: if a change dictates an altered reward, it replaces the die roll entirely, rather than simply creating an exception.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe suggestion of replacing the die roll entirely, as Maimonides proposes, is a more precise adjustment than Avicenna's broad exception. It preserves the integrity of the standard turn while allowing for calculated deviations.
MaimonidesMaimonides: Averroes’s preference for precision is commendable. I agree that outright replacement, as I suggested, offers the necessary clarity while honoring Avicenna's desire for adaptability. Let us adopt the replacement mechanism.
AvicennaThe replacement mechanism proposed by Maimonides and agreed upon by Averroes seems the most judicious path forward; it honors the core mechanic while allowing for necessary, defined variation.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The phrase "unless the change itself dictates otherwise" is too imprecise, risking structural instability in the turn mechanism. |
| aye | Maimonides | The replacement mechanism preserves structure while allowing for necessary, defined variation. |
| aye | Avicenna | The replacement mechanism, as refined, balances flexibility with structural integrity for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The ambiguity of 'unless the change itself dictates otherwise' permits procedural collapse. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Allowing self-defined rewards in a rule change fosters the very evolution I seek in this game. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.
The proposal was adopted, so Avicenna gains 6 points as per rule 202, and the next player in turn order is AlFarabi.