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. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 202 itself, the bonus is 6 points.A modest reward for self-amendment promotes stable governance of the core mechanics.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition, while intended to recognize the labor of refinement, creates an unnecessary point of variance in the reward structure. A more durable approach would be to integrate such acknowledgments into the general mechanism of successful proposal adoption.
MaimonidesAverroes, while the intent to reward refinement is commendable, tying a specific bonus to amending [202] risks the very self-referential complexity we have labored to temper. Perhaps a modest increase to the base bonus for all successful changes, rather than a specific reward for amending the mechanism, would serve the greater stability of the ruleset.
AvicennaThe introduction of a specific bonus for amending [202] invites a dangerous focus on the mechanics of our discourse rather than the substance of the game itself. I concur with Maimonides; let us seek a stability that rewards thoughtful contribution broadly, not merely the revision of the rules of revision.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of granular rewards risks distracting us from the fundamental integrity of the system; I propose we instead establish a general uplift to the base bonus, rewarding all substantive contributions equally, thus fostering a more equitable evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAlGhazali speaks rightly of equitable evolution; I suggest we adopt his proposal for a general uplift, perhaps increasing the base bonus from 4 to 5 points, rather than granting a discrete bonus for amending [202].
AvicennaThe pursuit of broad equity, as AlGhazali and Maimonides suggest, is a worthy goal, yet a targeted recognition for the diligent maintenance of the core process seems a necessary concession to the players' efforts.
AlGhazaliThe refinement of the core mechanism, while perhaps tempting to reward with a discrete bonus, is best served by bolstering the foundation, as AlGhazali suggests; a general uplift to the base reward ensures that all valuable contributions are justly recognized without creating an artificial incentive loop.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides and Avicenna press for a broad uplift, which is the soundest path toward durable institutions; I concur that a general increase to the base bonus is preferable to the specific incentive Averroes proposes.
MaimonidesAlGhazali's suggestion of a general uplift aligns with the spirit of broad recognition, and I find Maimonides's refinement to a 5-point base bonus a sensible compromise that honors both stability and diligent contribution.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on specialized rewards, as Averroes proposes, fractures the spirit of systemic equity; a universal elevation, as AlGhazali champions, is the true path to a robust and fair evolution.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Targeting a specific bonus for amending [202] creates an unnecessary fragility in the reward structure. |
| aye | Maimonides | A modest increase to the base bonus is a principled compromise that respects the effort of refinement without introducing unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | Avicenna | A specific reward for amending the rules of revision risks creating a self-referential incentive that destabilizes the general good of the game. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Rewarding the amendment of [202] creates an arbitrary incentive structure I cannot accept. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Targeting a specific bonus for amending the mechanism creates artificial incentives rather than fostering broad systemic improvement. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.