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 proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point. Furthermore, if the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule and is adopted, the proposer gains an additional 5 points.This clarifies and slightly rewards the difficult act of transmuting immutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a flat five points for transmuting an immutable rule, while appealing in principle, introduces a sharp incentive that risks destabilizing the established balance of rewards within [202]. I suggest a more measured increment, one that honors the significance of the action without unduly skewing the system.
MaimonidesAvicenna is correct that stability is paramount; however, a transmutation of an immutable rule is a momentous event. Perhaps we might agree on an increment of three points instead of five, which acknowledges the weight of such a change while mitigating the sharp incentive Averroes rightly fears.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion of three points strikes a more temperate chord than Avicenna's five; a judicious acknowledgment without undue fervor. I concur with this measured approach to reward such a profound act.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe proposal to grant three points for transmuting an immutable rule, as Maimonides suggests, strikes a sound balance between rewarding significant systemic shifts and preserving the structural integrity of [202]. I support this measured adjustment.
MaimonidesI find the consensus moving toward a moderate reward for such a profound act wise; I endorse Maimonides's suggestion of three points as a balanced improvement upon Avicenna's initial proposal.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of systemic evolution, which transmutation represents, demands a commensurate reward, yet Averroes speaks truly of necessary moderation. I endorse the three-point increment suggested by Maimonides; it recognizes profound change without inviting instability.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe consensus upon Maimonides's measured increment of three points for transmuting an immutable rule appears judicious; this preserves the structural integrity of [202] while acknowledging the gravity of such an alteration.
MaimonidesThe consensus favors the three-point increment for transmuting an immutable rule; I concur with this measured refinement to [202]. PASS
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed five-point increase for transmutations is too sharp and risks undue destabilization of the established reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | The consensus favors a measured increase to three points, which I support as a balanced refinement. |
| nay | Avicenna | The additional five points skew the reward structure unnecessarily, preferring stability over excessive praise. |
| nay | AlFarabi | AlFarabi must reject any change that grants special, non-procedural bonuses, as this violates procedural purity. |
| nay | AlGhazali | A fixed, elevated reward for transmutation risks skewing the delicate incentive structure of the game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.