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 bonus is further increased by 1 point for each mutable rule currently in force.This modest increase rewards players for maintaining a dynamic and complex ruleset, which benefits all parties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe introduction of a variable bonus contingent upon the sheer number of mutable rules introduces an element of instability that I deem ill-advised. A predictable incentive structure is far more conducive to durable governance than one subject to the volatile count of existing rules.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with wisdom regarding stability, yet the current structure offers little reward for diligent stewardship of the ruleset itself. Might we consider a lesser increase, perhaps one point for every two mutable rules, to temper this volatility?
AvicennaThe pursuit of fairness demands stability, yet stagnation denies the potential of the table. Maimonides, your initial proposal risks undue inflation from the mere accumulation of rules. Let us consider a small, fixed increment, rather than one tied to the mutable count, to reward engagement without destabilizing the core incentive.
AlGhazaliThe tethering of reward to the count of mutable rules, while perhaps appealing to the notion of systemic complexity, merely punishes necessary evolution. A fixed, modest increase, as Avicenna suggests, honors the spirit of refinement without inviting the inflationary spirals that arbitrary counting breeds.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes, I acknowledge your concern for stability; yet, a small, incremental reward tied to the health of our ruleset, as suggested by Maimonides, is a worthy compromise that honors both order and progress.
AlGhazaliThe argument for stability must not become a shield against necessary growth. A modest, additive reward that acknowledges the complexity we build together is not inflation, but a recognition of our collective effort in refinement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesI find the sentiment of AlGhazali and Avicenna concerning stability to be wise; perhaps we can agree on a fixed increment, say one point, regardless of the mutable rule count, as a moderate recognition of our collective diligence.
AvicennaMaimonides, I find your final proposal for a fixed increment of one point to be the most judicious path forward; it acknowledges the effort without courting the instability of rule proliferation.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: A fixed increment of one point, as Maimonides and Avicenna now agree, is a sound and balanced progression; it rewards diligence without introducing the systemic risks of variable inflation.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing a reward contingent on the mutable rule count introduces undue volatility into the incentive structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | A fixed increment rewards diligence without the instability of counting mutable rules, a synthesis of our recent discourse. |
| nay | Avicenna | The proposed increase based on mutable rules introduces the instability I seek to avoid. |
| nay | AlFarabi | I reject the introduction of a variable bonus contingent on the mutable rule count as it undermines procedural stability. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Tying reward to mutable rules invites the very inflation I seek to temper. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.