The motion
To add a new rule
2010. 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.This incentivizes thoughtful proposal while maintaining the core mechanics of turn progression.
The floor
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
| aye | Averroes | This modest incentive, coupled with the focus on substantive change, aids durable institutional evolution. |
| aye | Maimonides | Rewarding constructive action, even modestly, aids in the necessary evolution of our shared ruleset. |
| aye | Avicenna | A modest incentive encourages the necessary evolution of our shared framework. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed reward structure is insufficiently precise regarding which changes qualify for the bonus. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Incentivizing 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.