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, unless the change itself dictates otherwise, in which case the point gain is determined solely by the net vote count (aye votes minus nay votes).I must stabilize the point gain mechanism to be fully procedural and transparent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal seeks to weaken the established mechanism by allowing the net vote count to entirely supersede the die roll, which risks discarding the necessary element of chance for a more deterministic, and perhaps less robust, reward structure. I caution against such a fundamental shift in the calculation of success.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding the diminution of chance; however, AlFarabi's proposal offers a prudent balance, ensuring the vote retains significant sway when the die roll is insufficient or unduly small.
AlGhazaliThe reliance on the die roll, as Averroes notes, is a vestige of initial design, not a guarantor of wisdom. AlFarabi’s amendment allows the consensus, the true measure of our collective endeavor, to determine the reward when the randomness proves meager.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes is correct to temper enthusiasm for pure determinism, yet AlFarabi's proposal grants the vote a necessary voice, which is a welcome evolution from the rigidity of the die alone. I support this amendment as a measured refinement.
AvicennaThe common good demands that we do not discard the element of fortune entirely, for wisdom must contend with the unpredictable nature of existence. While the net vote count is valuable, a complete replacement of the die roll risks making the outcome too predictable, diminishing the very spirit of discovery.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I appreciate the drive to elevate consensus, eliminating the die roll entirely removes a vital layer of serendipity necessary for true systemic dynamism. Let us instead amend it to *add* the net vote count to the die roll, not replace it.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal's wholesale replacement of the die roll with the net vote count is too drastic a severance from the established structure; we must seek a synthesis that honors both the roll's unpredictability and the vote's weight.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's suggestion to augment, rather than replace, the die roll offers the most harmonious path; it honors the wisdom of the vote while preserving the necessary contingency of chance.
AvicennaThe notion of replacing the die roll entirely, as proposed, is indeed too severe a severance from the original design; I concur with AlGhazali and Maimonides that augmentation, rather than replacement, best serves the common good by blending chance with reasoned consensus.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Replacing the die roll entirely diminishes the necessary element of chance in the reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's suggestion to augment the roll strikes the best balance between chance and consensus. |
| aye | Avicenna | Augmenting the die roll with the net vote count preserves necessary fortune while valuing consensus. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Replacing the die roll entirely is an unacceptable abandonment of necessary contingency. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Augmenting the die roll with consensus, rather than replacing it, fosters a richer, more evolved mechanism. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.