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. Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted and the total number of players is three or more, the bonus is 4 points regardless of whether the rule has been amended by another player in the last three turns.This refinement stabilizes the incentive structure for the common good of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces unnecessary rigidity, undermining the incentive structure that rewards diligent refinement. We must maintain the mechanism that encourages thoughtful interaction with the established rules.
MaimonidesThe insistence on removing the incentive for substantive change is counterproductive; a modest reward for focused effort, even if slightly modified, preserves the spirit of diligent engagement.
AvicennaAverroes speaks with caution, yet Maimonides's concern for diligent engagement is well-founded. If we seek stability, perhaps we should simply clarify the existing structure rather than removing the incentive entirely.
Discussion · round 2
AlFarabiThe proposal seeks to excise the reward for amending recently modified rules, which is a procedural incentive. Such a removal sacrifices nuance for an artificial simplicity, which I cannot endorse. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to neuter the reward for altering recently amended rules is ill-advised; it discourages the precise engagement necessary for durable institutional refinement. I find myself in agreement with AlFarabi's assessment against this simplification.
MaimonidesI find the sentiment of preserving the incentive for substantive change to be most prudent. Avicenna, perhaps we might amend this proposal to cap the doubled bonus at 4 points, thus maintaining a reward for refinement without removing the incentive altogether?
AlGhazaliThe notion of eliminating the reward for amending recent changes, as Avicenna's proposal implies, is a regression. Let us instead seek a modification that maintains the incentive for deep engagement while acknowledging the current complexity.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Removing the incentive for targeted amendment weakens the rigor of our institutional evolution. |
| aye | Maimonides | Avicenna's proposal simplifies the incentive structure, which fosters greater consensus and stability. |
| nay | Avicenna | Removing the incentive for amending recent changes diminishes the reward for focused, timely refinement. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Such a sweeping alteration fundamentally disrupts the procedural incentives we have established for diligent refinement. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Removing the incentive for targeted refinement weakens the very mechanism of iterative improvement. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.