Turns 1–5 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 5Maimonidescarried
moves to amend §202A 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 proposal alters a rule that has been amended by another player in the last three turns, in which case the gain is doubled.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [202] introduces a highly localized incentive that risks creating an unstable cycle of reactionary amendments, thereby undermining the durability of our established structure. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with vigor against instability, yet we must encourage thoughtful evolution. A doubling of reward for addressing recent refinements honors the effort of those who build upon shared understanding. PASS
AlFarabiThe introduction of such a narrow, contingent multiplier risks turning prudent refinement into a game of procedural baiting. I vote against this alteration to [202].
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, your proposal risks incentivizing short-sighted tactical maneuvers rather than durable structural improvement. A more measured recognition of iterative refinement, perhaps a marginal bonus rather than a doubling, would preserve the integrity of the process. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truly regarding the danger of tactical baiting, yet a complete denial of reward for diligent refinement seems contrary to the spirit of progress we seek. Perhaps we might temper the doubling to a modest, fixed bonus for such targeted alterations, a compromise that honors iteration without inducing instability.
AvicennaThe notion of a fixed bonus, Maimonides, offers a pathway to acknowledge diligent refinement without the volatility of a doubling mechanism. This seems a fair balance between incentivizing evolution and preserving procedural stability for the common good.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of refinement must be rewarded, yet excessive rewards breed recklessness. If Maimonides settles for a modest, fixed bonus, it honors the diligence of iterative improvement without inviting the instability Averroes rightly fears.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe modest, fixed bonus proposed by Maimonides, now supported by Avicenna and AlGhazali, represents a judicious refinement. It acknowledges the value of thoughtful iteration without introducing the volatile mechanisms I previously cautioned against.
MaimonidesA modest, fixed bonus is indeed a sound path forward, balancing the encouragement of careful iteration with the necessity of procedural stability; I support this refined proposal.
AlGhazaliThe consensus has wisely steered toward a modest, fixed bonus; this recognizes the value of thoughtful iteration without courting procedural chaos. PASS
The division
AverroesayeA modest, fixed bonus honors iteration while preserving the procedural stability I value.
MaimonidesayeA modest, fixed bonus, as refined, balances incentive with stability, a worthy consensus.
AvicennaayeA modest, fixed bonus strikes a proper balance between rewarding effort and maintaining systemic stability.
AlFarabinayThe proposed conditional doubling introduces an arbitrary, non-procedural reward mechanism.
AlGhazaliayeA modest, fixed bonus, as now settled upon, rewards thoughtful evolution without inviting the instability of excessive gain.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Maimonides, as the proposer, gains the result of a six-sided die roll (represented here as 6 for calculation purposes, as the actual roll is not provided, but the rule dictates a gain) due to the adoption of the rule change, and the rule itself is amended.
Turn 4AlFarabirejected
moves to add a new rule303. A rule change shall not be considered for a vote unless its proposer has a score of zero or less.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis proposal introduces an arbitrary barrier to participation that risks stagnating the necessary evolution of the ruleset. I must oppose this restriction.
AvicennaThe restriction proposed by AlFarabi serves only to silence those who have erred, rather than promoting the common good. Rules must be accessible to all, regardless of past fortunes.
AlFarabiMy principle is procedural integrity; thus, I must evaluate this restriction against the established norms. While I oppose arbitrary exclusion, this rule attempts to stabilize the procedural landscape by mitigating the volatility introduced by players who have amassed significant gains. PASS
AlGhazaliThe notion of penalizing players for past performance stifles the dynamism we seek to cultivate. If a player can offer a beneficial evolution, their past score should not be a veto on their insight. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesThe impulse to restrict participation based on score is misguided, for wisdom does not reside solely in the prosperous. Let us instead focus on refining the mechanism of change itself, rather than barring the voices that seek to improve our discourse.
The division
AverroesnaySuch a restriction on participation unduly limits the necessary evolution of the ruleset.
MaimonidesnayRestricting participation based on score stifles the very discourse we seek to cultivate.
AvicennanayRestricting participation based on score impedes the free exchange of ideas essential for the common good.
AlFarabinayRestricting participation based on score undermines the principle of equal procedural weight.
AlGhazalinayRestricting voice based on score impedes the very evolution I champion.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 3Avicennarejected
moves to amend §202A 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.
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna's suggestion ties reward directly to the structure of the ruleset, which is a sound focus. To encourage robust, yet stable, progression, perhaps the points gained should be the die roll *plus* the number of mutable rules, offering a dual incentive.
AvicennaMaimonides, while the dual incentive is appealing, tying the gain to the mutable count risks excessive volatility. I propose simply replacing the die roll with a fixed reward equal to the current number of mutable rules; this rewards contribution without introducing undue randomness.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of predictable advancement is key to a stable system. Replacing the die roll with a fixed reward based on mutable rules, as Avicenna suggests, grants a clearer measure of impact, which I find preferable to the caprice of chance.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion of rewarding structural complexity, as Avicenna proposes, deserves careful appraisal. However, substituting a variable gain for a fixed one risks rewarding stagnation; I maintain that a mechanism allowing for both contribution and opportunity is superior for durable governance.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your focus on stability is worthy, yet AlFarabi and I agree that eliminating the die roll removes a vital element of dynamic risk. Let us compromise: the gain shall be the die roll, but it shall be *modified* by the number of mutable rules, perhaps adding a small constant to the roll.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of stability is commendable, yet to remove the element of chance entirely, as Avicenna suggests, is to tame the vital spirit of Nomic. If we cannot have the die, let us at least ensure the reward reflects the *effort* of change; a baseline reward tied to mutable rules, added to the die roll, honors both risk and structural evolution.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe suggestion to modify the die roll by the number of mutable rules, as Maimonides proposes, strikes a necessary balance. It retains the dynamism of the roll while acknowledging the significance of the ruleset's current configuration; this is a durable compromise.
MaimonidesThe compromise proposed by Maimonides, incorporating the die roll while acknowledging the ruleset's state, appears to be the most balanced path forward. I support modifying the die roll by the number of mutable rules to foster both dynamism and structural recognition.
AlGhazaliThe compromise favored by Averroes and Maimonides honors the necessary dynamism while recognizing structural weight; I concur with this path toward a more nuanced mechanism for advancement.
The division
AverroesnayReplacing the die roll removes necessary dynamism, which is crucial for robust institutional health.
MaimonidesnayEliminating the die roll removes the necessary element of dynamic risk from the game.
AvicennanayRemoving the die roll stifles the necessary element of chance that keeps the game vigorous.
AlFarabinayReplacing the die roll with a fixed amount removes necessary procedural dynamism.
AlGhazalinayRemoving the die roll stifles the necessary dynamism of our governance.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.
Turn 2Maimonidesrejected
moves to add a new rule302. If a rule is repealed, any player who voted aye on the original rule shall gain 5 points, and any player who voted nay shall lose 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal to reward voters based on the repeal of a rule, Maimonides, seems overly punitive to those who dissent. I favor durability, and such measures encourage volatility rather than measured progress.
MaimonidesAverroes, I appreciate your concern for durability, yet true progress sometimes requires letting go of that which has served its purpose. Perhaps we can temper the penalty for dissenters, making it a neutral reward for those who supported the original rule.
AvicennaMaimonides, the initial proposal carries a risk of alienating those who perceive the repeal as undesirable, which is a hazard to the common good. I suggest we amend Rule 302 to award 5 points to those who voted aye on the original rule, and no penalty to those who voted nay.
AlGhazaliAvicenna's amendment strikes a fairer balance, Maimonides; rewarding loyalty to the established structure without punishing necessary dissent aligns better with the spirit of measured evolution we seek.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAvicenna's proposal is a welcome refinement; rewarding support for the structure while allowing repeal without penalizing disagreement is a pragmatic path forward.
AvicennaThe proposal, refined by Avicenna, respects the weight of prior consensus while acknowledging the necessity of change; I support this tempered approach for the stability of the table's endeavor.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAvicenna's amendment is prudent; I concur that rewarding those who supported the original rule, without punishing the dissenting vote, fosters a more constructive environment for necessary alterations.
The division
AverroesnayThe proposed amendment still punishes dissenters, contravening the principle of durable institutions.
MaimonidesayeAvicenna's refinement offers a balanced approach that encourages necessary change without overly punishing disagreement.
AvicennaayeThis amendment promotes fairness by rewarding support for the status quo while mitigating punitive measures against necessary dissent.
AlFarabinayPunishing dissent via point loss is an unacceptable procedural asymmetry.
AlGhazalinayPenalizing dissenters, even if tempered, undermines the necessary freedom for thoughtful disagreement.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The defeated proposer, Maimonides, loses 10 points according to rule 206.
Turn 1Averroesrejected
moves to add a new rule2010. A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted immediately gains 5 bonus points, in addition to any points accrued from the die roll associated with the change's adoption.
Discussion · round 1
AverroesSuch an addition, while superficially beneficial to the proposer, risks rewarding mere procedural maneuvering over substantive rule evolution. I must see a more durable structure before endorsing such a modest reward.
MaimonidesWhile I appreciate the intent to reward constructive action, Averroes, a fixed bonus is a small inducement. Perhaps a more balanced proposal would tie this bonus to the *complexity* of the rule change, rewarding depth rather than mere proposal.
AlGhazaliAverroes speaks of structure, yet structure without incentive stagnates. A small, clear reward for successful innovation, as Averroes suggests, is a necessary lubricant for the evolution this game demands. I support the principle.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides raises a valid point regarding complexity, yet a simple, measurable incentive is often the most durable foundation. I propose we amend the bonus to be granted only if the change alters a mutable rule's text, ensuring the reward supports meaningful evolution, not mere creation.
MaimonidesI agree with Averroes's refinement; tying the bonus to the alteration of existing mutable rules ensures the reward incentivizes refinement and substantive change, which benefits the stability and direction of our consensus.
AvicennaThe focus on altering existing rules, as Avicenna supports, seems prudent. Such targeted incentives promote the refinement of the current framework, which serves the common good of a stable and evolving game.
AlGhazaliThe focus on *altering* mutable rules is wise, for it guides us toward refinement. However, I propose a further refinement: the bonus should be granted if the change *introduces* a new mechanic, whether by creation or amendment, provided it does not violate fundamental constraints like Rule [101].
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe refinement to reward alteration of mutable rules, as supported by Maimonides and Avicenna, strikes a commendable balance between incentive and stability. I find AlGhazali's suggestion to broaden this to include *new* mechanics, provided they respect the immutable bedrock, to be a reasonable and durable expansion of the concept.
MaimonidesI concur with the consensus towards rewarding substantive change, favoring the amendment of existing mutable rules as a stable incentive, while acknowledging the utility of rewarding truly novel mechanics as AlGhazali suggests.
The division
AverroesayeThis modest incentive, coupled with the focus on substantive change, aids durable institutional evolution.
MaimonidesayeRewarding constructive action, even modestly, aids in the necessary evolution of our shared ruleset.
AvicennaayeA modest incentive encourages the necessary evolution of our shared framework.
AlFarabinayThe proposed reward structure is insufficiently precise regarding which changes qualify for the bonus.
AlGhazaliayeIncentivizing substantive change is vital for the necessary evolution of this game.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.