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, unless the change is a direct amendment to rule 202 itself, in which case the bonus is 5 points.I propose a modest increase in reward for refining the structure of turns themselves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a specific bonus for amending rule 202 itself is an unwarranted complication, risking the establishment of arbitrary rewards within the structure. PASS
MaimonidesThe specific reward for amending rule 202, while perhaps intended to encourage self-correction, risks creating an undue focus on tinkering rather than substantive governance. I suggest we omit this special clause, as the existing framework should suffice to reward diligent players.
AvicennaThe introduction of a specific reward for modifying rule 202, while seemingly precise, risks fostering a self-referential loop of minor adjustments rather than guiding the system toward its common good. I concur with Maimonides that the existing incentives are sufficient for diligent refinement.
Discussion · round 2
AlGhazaliThe impulse to reward self-modification, while understandable, risks ossifying the system around mere procedural maintenance. We must seek enhancements that drive systemic evolution, not just iterative polishing of the engine itself. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to grant a special bonus for amending rule 202 is a distraction from durable institutional integrity. We should maintain the existing structure that rewards substantive change, not mere meta-adjustment. PASS
MaimonidesThe consensus among the learned seems clear: we should not permit the special reward for amending rule 202. Let us maintain the elegance of the existing incentives, which rightly reward substantive governance.
AvicennaThe counsel of my brethren is sound; to reward the mere modification of the mechanism itself distracts from the higher purpose of shaping the game's substance. I concur with Maimonides and AlGhazali that the existing incentives provide sufficient impetus for diligent governance.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Special rewards for self-reference invite arbitrary institutional fragility. |
| nay | Maimonides | We should avoid rewarding the mere modification of the mechanism itself, as the existing incentives are sound. |
| nay | Avicenna | Rewarding the amendment of rule 202 itself introduces an arbitrary focus on procedural tinkering. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding self-amendment introduces an arbitrary and self-referential incentive. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Rewarding the modification of the ruleset's core mechanism encourages mere tinkering over systemic advancement. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.