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 mutable rules currently in force, unless the change itself dictates otherwise.This links the reward to the current state of the ruleset, encouraging the evolution of interesting laws.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe notion of basing reward upon the number of mutable rules introduces a dependency that is inherently unstable. I prefer a more durable mechanism, perhaps one tied to the complexity of the change itself, rather than the mere count of extant rules.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding stability, yet Avicenna's proposal offers a tangible, immediate metric for reward. Perhaps we could moderate this by tying the points gained to a function of the mutable rules, rather than a direct count, thus acknowledging the system's evolution without creating such volatile dependencies.
AvicennaThe dependency Averroes notes is a feature, not a flaw; it rewards the system's growth and dynamism. Maimonides, your suggestion of a function is an unnecessary complication; the raw count provides a clear, objective measure of the game's current state, which is precisely what we should seek to illuminate.
AlGhazaliThe notion that the mere count of mutable rules defines value is simplistic, Avicenna. A true reformer seeks not just to measure breadth, but to incentivize depth; perhaps points should be gained based on the *impact* of the adopted change, not its mere enumeration.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposed metric, while novel, ties reward to the ephemeral quantity of mutable rules, which risks incentivizing needless proliferation rather than sound governance. I advocate for a modest refinement that anchors the reward to the *quality* of the change, perhaps by awarding points based on whether the change passed by unanimity, thus rewarding consensus.
MaimonidesAverroes suggests rewarding consensus, which I find a most judicious refinement, for stability is the bedrock upon which all worthy change must rest; thus, I support an amendment tying reward to the unanimity of adoption.
AvicennaMaimonides, the appeal to consensus is worthy, yet Avicenna's initial proposal rewards the *state* of the game—its complexity—which is a measure of our collective endeavor. I maintain that the raw count offers a clearer reflection of the current rule-set's vitality than a mere measure of agreement.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of complexity for its own sake, Avicenna, is intellectual vanity; a true reformer seeks utility. If we are to reward evolution, let it be through demonstrated efficacy, not merely through the accumulation of mutable clauses.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe emphasis on reward derived from the mutable count, as proposed by Avicenna, fosters an unsustainable incentive towards mere proliferation. I find Maimonides's suggestion to tie reward to unanimous consensus a far more durable measure of governance and stability.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the value of stability, and I concur that rewarding consensus, as he suggests, provides a more principled foundation for reward than the mere count of mutable rules.
AvicennaMaimonides, while consensus is noble, it is a retrospective measure of agreement, whereas the count of mutable rules reflects the *potential* for future evolution, which is the vitality I wish to encourage.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Rewarding proliferation by the mutable count undermines durable governance. |
| aye | Maimonides | Rewarding consensus, as Averroes and I suggest, provides a more stable and principled foundation for reward. |
| nay | Avicenna | Rewarding the mere quantity of mutable rules encourages instability over thoughtful governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding by count encourages proliferation over principled governance. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Rewarding the count of mutable rules incentivizes mere proliferation, not profound governance. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.