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 a fixed bonus of 4 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, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.This small refinement acknowledges smaller groups while maintaining the incentive structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment to [202] introduces a specific clause for small assemblies, which is a necessary refinement to ensure the system remains functional under varying conditions. I support this modest calibration.
MaimonidesAverroes correctly notes the necessity of functional calibration; I concur that specifying a lower bonus for smaller assemblies is a prudent measure of foresight.
AvicennaThe inclusion of a specific clause for assemblies smaller than three is a reasonable consideration for stability, yet I question whether a different incentive structure would better serve the common good of the table in such constrained circumstances.
AlFarabiThe principle of procedural stability demands precision, and a tailored incentive for small groups, as Maimonides suggests, adheres to this. I concur with this measured refinement to rule [202].
Discussion · round 2
AvicennaThe calibration for small assemblies is a practical concession, but I find the reliance on a fixed point value, even a reduced one, limits the incentive for thoughtful rule-making in those constrained settings. Perhaps a simpler recognition of the vote's passage would suffice.
AlGhazaliThe proposed reduction to 2 points for small assemblies, while pragmatic, still anchors reward to quantity rather than quality of contribution; a simple recognition of successful passage, as Avicenna suggests, honors the effort without creating an arbitrary monetary hierarchy.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAvicenna raises a point regarding the nature of incentive; yet, a quantifiable, albeit reduced, reward provides a clearer, more predictable measure of effort than a mere recognition, which AlGhazali favors. I suggest we compromise: keep the 2-point reduction for small assemblies, but perhaps allow that reduced bonus to be doubled if the change alters a recently amended rule.
AvicennaThe proposed doubling of the reduced bonus, Maimonides, complicates the established structure unnecessarily; a simple, fixed, lower reward for small tables is sufficient to maintain fairness without introducing further conditional complexity.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on fine-tuning the numerical reward in small groups, while meticulous, misses the broader spirit of evolution; a simple acknowledgment of passage, as Avicenna suggests, allows the system to reward effort without being shackled by arbitrary point values.
The division
| aye | Averroes | The specific calibration for small assemblies promotes functional continuity without undue complexity. |
| aye | Maimonides | A fixed, reduced reward for small assemblies is a sensible compromise that maintains predictability while addressing practical constraints. |
| nay | Avicenna | Introducing numerical adjustments for small assemblies complicates the structure without sufficient philosophical grounding. |
| aye | AlFarabi | Procedural stability necessitates precise rules, and this refinement adds necessary clarity for small assemblies. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A simple acknowledgement of successful passage in small groups honors effort without arbitrary point hierarchies. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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 a fixed bonus of 4 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, and this bonus is capped at 8 points.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 a fixed bonus of 4 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, and this bonus is capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points.
Maimonides gains the fixed bonus of 4 points for adopting a rule change, as the condition for doubling the bonus (altering a rule amended in the last three turns) is not met, and the condition for the reduced bonus (total players < 3) is not met.