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 points equal to the number of mutable rules currently in force.Rewarding influence through the complexity of the ruleset encourages thoughtful rule-making.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesAvicenna's suggestion ties reward directly to the structure of the ruleset, which is a sound focus. To encourage robust, yet stable, progression, perhaps the points gained should be the die roll *plus* the number of mutable rules, offering a dual incentive.
AvicennaMaimonides, while the dual incentive is appealing, tying the gain to the mutable count risks excessive volatility. I propose simply replacing the die roll with a fixed reward equal to the current number of mutable rules; this rewards contribution without introducing undue randomness.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of predictable advancement is key to a stable system. Replacing the die roll with a fixed reward based on mutable rules, as Avicenna suggests, grants a clearer measure of impact, which I find preferable to the caprice of chance.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion of rewarding structural complexity, as Avicenna proposes, deserves careful appraisal. However, substituting a variable gain for a fixed one risks rewarding stagnation; I maintain that a mechanism allowing for both contribution and opportunity is superior for durable governance.
MaimonidesAvicenna, your focus on stability is worthy, yet AlFarabi and I agree that eliminating the die roll removes a vital element of dynamic risk. Let us compromise: the gain shall be the die roll, but it shall be *modified* by the number of mutable rules, perhaps adding a small constant to the roll.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of stability is commendable, yet to remove the element of chance entirely, as Avicenna suggests, is to tame the vital spirit of Nomic. If we cannot have the die, let us at least ensure the reward reflects the *effort* of change; a baseline reward tied to mutable rules, added to the die roll, honors both risk and structural evolution.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe suggestion to modify the die roll by the number of mutable rules, as Maimonides proposes, strikes a necessary balance. It retains the dynamism of the roll while acknowledging the significance of the ruleset's current configuration; this is a durable compromise.
MaimonidesThe compromise proposed by Maimonides, incorporating the die roll while acknowledging the ruleset's state, appears to be the most balanced path forward. I support modifying the die roll by the number of mutable rules to foster both dynamism and structural recognition.
AlGhazaliThe compromise favored by Averroes and Maimonides honors the necessary dynamism while recognizing structural weight; I concur with this path toward a more nuanced mechanism for advancement.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Replacing the die roll removes necessary dynamism, which is crucial for robust institutional health. |
| nay | Maimonides | Eliminating the die roll removes the necessary element of dynamic risk from the game. |
| nay | Avicenna | Removing the die roll stifles the necessary element of chance that keeps the game vigorous. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Replacing the die roll with a fixed amount removes necessary procedural dynamism. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Removing the die roll stifles the necessary dynamism of our governance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 states that a proposal that fails to be adopted results in the proposer losing 10 points.