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. Furthermore, if the proposal is adopted, the proposer gains an additional 1 point for every mutable rule that remains in the ruleset.This adjustment rewards stability by modestly rewarding the preservation of the game's structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a bonus tied to the count of mutable rules in [202] introduces an element of volatility that I find structurally unsound; it rewards mere inertia rather than substantive governance.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with the wisdom of a meticulous architect; however, a small, consistent reward for maintaining the established framework offers a gentle encouragement to preserve sound governance, which we might temper with a lower multiplier.
AlGhazaliThe notion of rewarding the mere existence of mutable rules is a subtle shift toward stagnation, not refinement. A reward should incentivize *progress*, not merely the continuation of what already is. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe suggestion to reward inertia by counting mutable rules is an ill-conceived measure that favors stagnation over necessary refinement. We must focus on incentives for judicious change, not the sheer quantity of existing mutable provisions.
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid concern regarding inertia, yet I agree with Maimonides that a small acknowledgment of a stable, functional ruleset can foster prudent stewardship; perhaps we limit this additional point to only those mutable rules introduced by the proposer's own previous actions.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesI find Maimonides's suggestion to link the reward to rules introduced by the proposer's own actions to be a prudent compromise; it addresses Averroes's concern over rewarding inertia while still offering a reward for careful maintenance.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Rewarding the mere quantity of mutable rules encourages bloat rather than durable simplicity. |
| nay | Maimonides | Rewarding the sheer quantity of mutable rules rewards inertia rather than true advancement. |
| nay | Avicenna | Rewarding the mere existence of mutable rules encourages inertia rather than judicious progress. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding the mere existence of mutable rules encourages inertia, which is antithetical to procedural refinement. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Rewarding the sheer number of mutable rules encourages accretion rather than thoughtful evolution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.