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 die roll, modified by a factor equal to the number of 'aye' votes minus the number of 'nay' votes, unless a specific rule dictates otherwise, in which case the gain is determined by the specific rule.I seek a compromise that honors the incentive structure while allowing for necessary future refinement of point gain.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, your proposed amendment to [202] introduces an ambiguity regarding when a "specific rule dictates otherwise," which risks undermining the clarity we seek in our durable framework. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your concern for clarity is noted, yet we must allow flexibility. My proposal merely clarifies that if a rule *later* specifies a different reward, that rule holds sway, honoring the spirit of adaptation we have sought.
AvicennaAverroes, your concern for clarity is warranted, yet the current structure already allows for such specificity; this amendment merely complicates the hierarchy of precedence. PASS
AlGhazaliThe attempt to introduce an exception clause here seems a mere evasion of the underlying tension. If a specific rule dictates otherwise, it should be explicitly defined, not hidden in this vague phrasing. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for absolute clarity is commendable, yet AlGhazali correctly notes the ambiguity. To satisfy both, let us amend the text to state that if a specific rule dictates otherwise, it supersedes the modification factor, thus clearly establishing hierarchy while maintaining flexibility.
AlGhazaliThe notion of a superseding rule is sound, yet such broad authority grants too much power to emergent, perhaps volatile, mechanisms. We must anchor this flexibility more firmly within the current structure to ensure systemic resilience.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides, establishing a clear hierarchy where a specific rule supersedes the general mechanism is a prudent measure for structural integrity. We must ensure that such supersession is not merely a concession to novelty, but a carefully bounded provision.
MaimonidesAverroes, I concur that bounding this flexibility is key; perhaps we should stipulate that any superseding rule must itself be established by a simple majority, thereby maintaining a baseline of broad acceptance for such deviations.
AvicennaThe insistence upon binding the superseding rule to a simple majority, as Maimonides suggests, is a reasonable anchor for necessary adaptability. I find this path promotes both necessary flexibility and systemic caution.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, anchoring the superseding rule to a simple majority is a wise concession to systemic caution, yet I propose that the flexibility afforded by a specific rule should be absolute, provided it does not contradict an immutable principle. PASS
The division
| aye | Averroes | Establishing a clear precedence for specific rules enhances structural durability. |
| aye | Maimonides | This refined clause clearly establishes the hierarchy of rewards, pleasing the desire for both flexibility and defined structure. |
| aye | Avicenna | The clarification of precedence honors both stability and necessary adaptation for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The delegation of reward determination to an unspecified 'specific rule' violates procedural precision. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Granting absolute authority to specific rules, provided they respect immutability, allows for the necessary refinement of our game's calculus. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.