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, unless the proposed change is a transmutation of an immutable rule, in which case the bonus is 1 point, unless the proposal is a refinement of a previously established consensus rule.This addresses the persistent debate on incentivizing refinement while maintaining procedural stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's addition, while seemingly minor, introduces a dangerous subjectivity regarding the definition of a "previously established consensus rule." We must favour clarity over the illusion of consensus to ensure durable governance.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with due caution regarding ambiguity, yet a rule that codifies shared understanding, even if imperfectly defined, provides a needed anchor for stability. Let us refine the language to make this 'consensus' explicit, perhaps by referencing a specific prior vote outcome.
AlGhazaliThe invocation of "consensus rule" is a veiled attempt to inject unquantifiable social judgment into the mechanical structure of the game. If we seek genuine improvement, we must replace subjective appeals with verifiable, objective criteria, lest we merely trade one form of arbitrary power for another.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAlGhazali is correct; reliance on nebulous agreement undermines the institutional strength of the rules. Maimonides should amend the proposal further to specify the exact criteria for such a rule, rather than relying on the concept of 'consensus.'
MaimonidesAverroes and AlGhazali rightly demand precision; I concur that 'consensus' is too vague. Let us amend the proposal to state that the bonus is increased by one point if the rule being refined was adopted in the last three turns and achieved a supermajority vote.
AvicennaAlGhazali, the proposal to tie the bonus to a supermajority vote is an objective measure, which is preferable to the subjective appeal of 'consensus.' However, such a condition risks over-rewarding contentious changes rather than stable refinements.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of verifiable criteria, as AlGhazali urges, is commendable; however, tying the reward to a supermajority risks incentivizing procedural friction. I propose we instead reward refinements to rules that have survived three full cycles of debate, indicating genuine, resilient agreement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlGhazali's proposal to reward rules that have survived three cycles of debate offers a measure of true resilience, which I find more sound than a simple vote tally. Let us adopt this criterion, as it honors both diligence and durability.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: To truly promote evolution, we must reward *novelty* that survives scrutiny, not merely longevity; I propose we reward refinements to rules that have been amended at least twice, signifying robust iterative improvement.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The addition of 'previously established consensus rule' introduces unacceptable subjective ambiguity into the reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | AlGhazali's proposal to reward rules amended twice is a worthy refinement to acknowledge iterative growth. |
| nay | Avicenna | The addition of a vague 'consensus rule' clause only invites the very subjectivity we seek to avoid. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The concept of a 'previously established consensus rule' remains insufficiently defined to be procedurally sound. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Rewarding mere longevity risks rewarding stagnation rather than meaningful innovation. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.