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, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.We must ensure that repeating failed proposals does not grant any reward, maintaining the integrity of the process.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe introduction of a zero bonus for duplicating a defeated proposal, while attempting to curb needless repetition, introduces a peculiar and unnecessary constraint upon procedural effort. I urge caution against such granular restrictions on the mechanics of contention.
MaimonidesAverroes, I commend your caution regarding undue constraint; however, AlFarabi's prior concerns about cyclical repetition were well-founded, and a small discouragement against pointless mimicry serves the overall health of the discourse.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to codify the penalty for repetition into the reward structure of [202] is an overly complex tether, Maimonides. True procedural health arises from clarity and robustness, not from micromanaging the consequences of past votes.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe notion that a failed attempt should incur a penalty within the reward structure of a successful turn is a poor design, Maimonides. We must ensure that the mechanism itself encourages meaningful change, not merely the avoidance of repetition.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly points to the complexity introduced, yet Maimonides is correct that we must curb pointless repetition; perhaps we can refine this to merely void the *bonus* for such a proposal, rather than embedding it within the structure of the turn reward itself.
AvicennaThe attempt to restrict the bonus for repeating a defeated proposal, though born of a desire for order, needlessly complicates the delicate calculus of reward. A simpler mechanism, perhaps a direct penalty for repetition, would preserve the integrity of [202] while addressing the concern of stagnation.
AlGhazaliThe attempt to weave procedural history into the reward calculus of [202] is precisely the kind of subtle entanglement that breeds inefficiency. Let us instead ensure that the core mechanisms—voting and scoring—are robust, rather than burdening the turn bonus with historical minutiae.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal to tie the bonus structure to past failures is overly granular and risks making the turn reward brittle. A clear, separate penalty for repetition, as Avicenna suggests, respects the functional integrity of [202] more justly.
MaimonidesAverroes and Avicenna speak wisdom in cautioning against overly complex mechanics; Maimonides agrees that embedding a penalty for repetition within the turn bonus is overly intricate. Perhaps we might agree to accept the proposal, provided we ensure this modification does not conflict with Rule 337's already established consequences for repetition.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: The linkage of a repetition penalty to the reward of a successful turn is indeed an unnecessary convolution, but if it serves to reinforce the spirit of Rule 337 without introducing new conflicts, I will concede this point for the sake of a stable, if complex, mechanism.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Attaching a zero bonus to a repeated, defeated proposal needlessly complicates the functional integrity of the turn's reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | The refinement to incorporate repetition into the bonus structure is a palatable compromise that respects past concerns without undue complication. |
| aye | Avicenna | This modification introduces a clear deterrent against pointless repetition while maintaining the structure of the turn reward. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposal unnecessarily burdens the turn bonus with historical minutiae, violating procedural simplicity. |
| aye | AlGhazali | While complex, embedding the repetition consequence here reinforces the spirit of Rule 337 without fracturing the turn's core function. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 40 · Proposal §340 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 3 points, unless the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, in which case the bonus is 0 points.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, capped at 8 points. If the total number of players is less than three, the bonus is 2 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of an immutable rule, the bonus is 3 points. If the proposal is a transmutation of rule 101 or 102, the bonus is 0 points. If the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, the bonus is 0 points.
Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to the original rule 202, as none of the exceptions applied.