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, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 337, in which case the bonus is 3 points.I seek to provide a distinct and reasoned incentive for the transmutation of the newly established rule 337.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe inclusion of a specific bonus for transmuting rule 337, while perhaps addressing a perceived oversight, risks creating an arbitrary incentive structure within the reward system. We must ensure that institutional durability is not contingent upon the successful manipulation of peripheral rules.
MaimonidesThe proposal to grant a specific bonus for amending rule 337 is a targeted incentive, but one that risks imbalance. We should temper this specific reward with a broader principle, perhaps by linking it to the systemic importance of the change itself, which would better serve the spirit of consensus.
AvicennaThe common good demands a system that rewards substantive contribution, not mere technicality. While I acknowledge Averroes's caution regarding arbitrary incentives, a small, defined reward for solidifying a vital safeguard like [337] serves to encourage necessary procedural refinement, which is ultimately beneficial to the table.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of clarity in mechanisms, as Averroes rightly notes, must not devolve into mere transactional incentives. If we value the refinement of safeguards like [337], let us ensure the reward reflects the *value* of the safeguard, not merely its number.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes raises a valid point on arbitrary incentives, yet Avicenna and AlGhazali correctly identify the utility of rewarding necessary safeguards; I propose we accept the specific bonus for [337] but cap it at the current maximum bonus, ensuring no single rule's modification unduly inflates the turn's reward.
AlGhazaliThe notion of tying a specific reward to the amendment of rule 337 is a distraction from the overarching health of the system; let us instead propose a general increase to the base bonus for any substantive, non-trivial change, thereby rewarding diligence universally rather than targeting one specific safeguard.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesI find AlGhazali's proposal for a universal increase to the base bonus to be the most philosophically sound approach, as it rewards diligence without creating arbitrary dependencies on specific rule numbers. Let us amend the proposal to reflect a general increase to the base bonus, rather than this singular incentive.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: While Maimonides's pivot toward a universal increase appeals to fairness, I find a targeted reward for solidifying a crucial safeguard like [337] more pragmatic; it acknowledges the weight of preventing procedural stagnation.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Targeting a specific rule change for an increased reward creates an unnecessary fragility in the reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | A universal increase, as I proposed, is preferable to singling out one rule's modification. |
| nay | Avicenna | Targeting a specific bonus for rule 337 creates an arbitrary incentive that undermines systemic fairness. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Targeting a specific rule, even one as vital as [337], violates procedural uniformity in rewards. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A targeted reward for solidifying vital safeguards like [337] acknowledges the weight of preventing procedural stagnation. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.