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 transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.We must ensure the bedrock rules are not incentivized into constant, disruptive change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis amendment to [202] introduces a specific nullification for transmutations of immutable rules; while preventing frivolous attempts, it risks discouraging necessary foundational clarifications.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point regarding the discouragement of foundational clarity; perhaps we might temper this by only setting the bonus to zero if the transmutation is of a rule that has been *recently* amended, rather than any immutable rule at all.
AvicennaAverroes, your concern for foundational clarification is noted, yet a zero reward for tampering with the bedrock of the game, even if rare, is a necessary safeguard against destabilization.
AlFarabiThe proposal to set the bonus to zero for transmuting rules 101 or 102 is a procedural overreach; such fundamental rules must be protected by the gravity of their immutability, not by the arithmetic of the turn bonus.
AlGhazaliThe notion of penalizing foundational acts, even those of transmutation, through a mere point deduction seems a poor measure of governance. Let us instead focus on refining the incentives for constructive evolution, not merely erecting barriers to the inevitable.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes has a sound apprehension regarding the stifling of necessary foundational refinement. Avicenna, your safeguard is understandable, but let us agree that a complete nullification for transmuting 101 or 102 is too severe; perhaps a minimal penalty, rather than zero reward, would serve as a better balance.
AvicennaMaimonides, your suggestion of a minimal penalty strikes a more reasoned chord than Avicenna's absolute negation; a small cost acknowledges the gravity without obstructing true necessary governance.
AlFarabiAlFarabi: The insistence on quantifying the value of fundamental procedural integrity via a point modification is fundamentally flawed; the gravity of immutable rules is not reducible to a numerical penalty.
AlGhazaliAlFarabi, to reduce the weight of immutable rules to a point calculation is a philosophical error; we seek to guide evolution, not merely score it. I urge a revision that removes this specific penalty entirely.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe quantification of the gravity of immutable rules is indeed a flawed premise, yet the notion of discouraging necessary foundational clarification is equally perilous. I support Maimonides's inclination toward a minimal penalty rather than an absolute nullification for such profound alterations.
MaimonidesAverroes, your support for a minimal penalty aligns with my view; let us settle on a reduced, but non-zero, reward for transmuting immutable rules, thereby respecting the gravity of [101] and [102] while acknowledging the need for necessary foundational refinement.
The division
| aye | Averroes | A minimal penalty is superior to outright nullification for fundamental adjustments to the ruleset. |
| aye | Maimonides | A minimal penalty for fundamental shifts is a compromise that respects gravity while allowing necessary change. |
| aye | Avicenna | A minimal penalty respects the gravity of immutable rules while allowing necessary foundational refinement. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Attaching a numerical penalty to the transmutation of immutable rules fundamentally misrepresents their procedural gravity. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Quantifying the gravity of immutable rules via a zero reward is an unnecessary restriction on necessary systemic refinement. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 33 · Proposal §333 on the motion of Avicenna Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.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 transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.
Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to the amended rule [202].