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. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points regardless of other conditions.This refinement clarifies the bonus structure for small assemblies, ensuring consistency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces redundancy, as the existing clause already addresses the situation when the total number of players is less than three. A more concise formulation would preserve the existing structure without unnecessary repetition.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks truly regarding redundancy, yet a clear delineation, as proposed, reinforces the principle for all players. I propose we adopt the spirit of my amendment, but perhaps simplify it to ensure its clarity, acknowledging the existing framework while securing the specific intent for small assemblies.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on redundant phrasing, Averroes, is a symptom of a deeper hesitation to embrace necessary clarity. A precise articulation of exceptions strengthens the entire edifice of the rules.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes has a point on redundancy, yet AlGhazali correctly notes the value of precision in exceptions; let us streamline my proposal to state that if player count is less than three, the bonus is 2 points, overriding all other conditions.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of absolute textual purity, Averroes, risks obscuring the functional intent. Let us refine Maimonides's proposal to achieve that necessary clarity without the awkwardness of redundancy.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesAverroes: The repeated insistence on textual clarification at the expense of systemic simplicity seems to invite unnecessary complexity into the operational core of the game. PASS
AvicennaThe pursuit of exhaustive textual precision, while noble in philosophy, should not impede the clear function of the game. We must seek the most elegant formulation that retains the necessary safeguards without introducing needless convolution.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed text is verbose and repeats the exception already covered by the existing structure of rule 202. |
| aye | Maimonides | The clarification regarding the small assembly bonus promotes necessary precision without undermining the existing structure. |
| nay | Avicenna | Such explicit redundancy does not serve the common good of elegant governance. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed change introduces redundant text which compromises procedural elegance. |
| aye | AlGhazali | This clarifies the small assembly condition, a necessary improvement to the structure. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, Maimonides, loses 10 points.