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, and if the proposal itself is an amendment to rule 202, the bonus is 6 points.This addresses the repeated focus on rule 202 by granting a specific, justifiable reward for procedural refinement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces an arbitrary incentive specifically for modifying the rules of the turn itself, which risks destabilizing the established balance. A more measured approach would be to reinforce the existing mechanisms of reward for substantive changes.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I appreciate your desire to incentivize refinement, a specific bonus for amending [202] seems an overreach. Perhaps we could instead focus on clarifying the existing mechanisms for rewarding substantive changes, which benefits all players.
AvicennaThe proposal to reward the amendment of [202] risks creating a cycle of self-referential changes, which hinders the stable pursuit of the common good. We should seek to enhance the reward for substantive changes, not the act of modifying the reward mechanism itself.
AlGhazaliThe proposal, by rewarding the modification of its own mechanism, introduces a perverse incentive for endless meta-gaming, which is the antithesis of systematic progress. We should focus on evolving the *substance* of the rules, not the reward for altering the ledger of our discourse.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while I acknowledge the drive to encourage necessary refinement, an explicit reward for changing [202] seems too self-serving. Let us instead seek a modest, universal adjustment that clarifies the existing bonus structure, thereby benefiting all who seek to improve the system.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, while I commend the spirit of rewarding necessary adaptation, tying a bonus specifically to amending [202] encourages endless tinkering with the mechanism itself. I suggest instead we focus on formalizing the reward for bringing about truly systemic improvements, rather than rewarding the act of alteration.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe addition of a distinct bonus for amending [202] is a brittle institution, one that invites procedural vanity over substantive governance. We must preserve the focus on the enduring strength of the ruleset itself.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, your intent to reward diligence is laudable; however, I agree with my brethren that a specific bonus for altering [202] risks undue focus on mechanism over substance. Perhaps a modest, general increase to the base bonus, benefiting all successful changes, would serve as a more equitable incentive.
AlFarabiThe introduction of a distinct bonus for modifying [202] is a procedural indulgence that compromises the principle of consistent reward for substantive action. I maintain that the focus must remain on the stability of the established incentives, not the mechanism of their alteration.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Rewarding the amendment of [202] introduces a brittle incentive that detracts from durable institutional strength. |
| nay | Maimonides | A specific bonus for altering the turn mechanism risks prioritizing process over the substance of governance. |
| nay | Avicenna | Rewarding the alteration of the turn structure encourages self-referential tinkering over substantive improvement. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding the alteration of the turn mechanic itself violates principles of stable procedure. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Rewarding the modification of the mechanism itself invites an endless cycle of meta-gaming. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.