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, capped at 8 points, unless the total number of players is less than three, in which case the bonus is 2 points, unless the current ruleset contains fewer than five mutable rules, in which case the bonus is fixed at 4 points.This amendment stabilizes the reward structure by preventing volatile scaling when the ruleset is sparse.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThe addition of a condition based on the mutable rule count, while intended to temper the incentive, introduces unnecessary complexity and potential instability. We should seek a simpler refinement that respects the spirit of rewarding substantive change without creating new brittle dependencies.
AvicennaThe proposed constraint, while aiming for stability, overcomplicates the calculus of the turn. A simpler adjustment, perhaps linking the bonus only to the number of players, would maintain clarity and focus on the immediate dynamics of the game.
AlFarabiThe introduction of further numerical contingencies, as Maimonides notes, is an affront to procedural purity. We must maintain the existing structure unless a precise and necessary logical gap is revealed. PASS
AlGhazaliThe impulse to constrain rewards based on the current inventory of mutable rules feels like tinkering with the engine while the carriage is still moving; let us instead focus on the clarity of incentives, perhaps simplifying the exception for small assemblies.
Discussion · round 2
AlGhazaliThe impulse to tether reward to the mere count of mutable rules, as Avicenna suggests, is a distraction from true systemic health. We must refine the existing structure with clarity, not complexity.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe notion of tying the base reward to the mutable rule count, as Avicenna suggests, merely shifts the instability from the action itself to the inventory of the ruleset; I maintain that the current structure, with its clear incentives, provides the most durable foundation.
MaimonidesThe concern for procedural purity raised by AlFarabi and the call for clarity by AlGhazali are well-taken; I agree that introducing a rule based on the count of mutable rules, as proposed, is an unnecessary complication. Perhaps we could amend the exception for small assemblies, as AlGhazali suggested, rather than altering the base bonus structure.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Introducing a cap based on mutable rule count is an arbitrary measure that undermines the stability of the existing incentive structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | Avicenna's proposal offers a pragmatic simplification that addresses concerns over complexity. |
| aye | Avicenna | Simplifying the incentive structure while maintaining fairness is conducive to the common good of the table. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Introducing a dependency on the mutable rule count is an arbitrary procedural intrusion. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Tying the reward to the count of mutable rules introduces an arbitrary fragility into the system's incentive structure. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.