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 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.To prevent self-referential reward loops that overly complicate the incentives of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [202] introduces an unnecessary layer of conditional negation regarding amendments to rule 203, which only complicates the incentive structure. PASS
MaimonidesThe refinement to negate the bonus increase when amending 203 after amending it recently is a sound measure for preventing procedural self-reward, a point I commend. I support this modification to ensure the incentive remains tied to substantive change, not merely iterative refinement.
AvicennaThe concern regarding self-reward is valid, Maimonides, yet such granular negation risks obscuring the fundamental principle of incentive. I propose we instead ensure the bonus for amending 203 is universally applied upon adoption, regardless of recent activity, to reward the pursuit of clear governance.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on negating a reward for pursuing clarity, simply because the pursuit was iterative, seems to penalize diligence. We should reward the attempt to refine the very mechanism of governance, as Maimonides suggests, without this needless caveat.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe negation you propose, Avicenna, introduces an arbitrary limit on rewarding engagement with the core mechanism of governance. I find Maimonides's measured refinement to be the most durable, as it addresses the risk of self-perpetuation without extinguishing the incentive for necessary procedural refinement.
MaimonidesAlFarabi, while your desire for absolute textual purity is recognized, we must temper it with the practical wisdom that overly restrictive conditions can stifle necessary evolution. I concur with Maimonides that preventing self-reward is prudent, and perhaps we can adopt his refinement while simplifying the language surrounding it.
AlGhazaliThe fear of self-reward, as Maimonides rightly points out, is a structural concern, but negating the bonus entirely for iterative refinement is too harsh a penalty. I suggest we accept Maimonides's refinement but broaden the scope so that any amendment to a rule amended in the last three turns, not just 203, triggers the negation.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAlGhazali's proposal to broaden the negation to any recently amended rule is a worthy extension of Maimonides's intent, as it addresses iterative refinement more broadly while still guarding against trivial self-reward.
AvicennaThe suggestion to broaden the negation to any recently amended rule, as AlGhazali proposes, aligns with Maimonides's aim to prevent trivial self-reward while allowing for substantive iteration; I concur with this refinement.
AlGhazaliAlGhazali: If we broaden the negation to all recently amended rules, we risk discouraging necessary responsiveness; I favor Maimonides's original, targeted safeguard for rule 203, as it addresses the most critical loop.
The division
| aye | Averroes | Maimonides's refinement prevents the incentive structure from rewarding mere procedural iteration, which favors durable institutions. |
| aye | Maimonides | I find this targeted safeguard against self-reward a reasonable compromise that preserves incentive while preventing trivial cycles. |
| aye | Avicenna | This refinement prevents the self-rewarding cycle without unduly stifling the pursuit of necessary clarity in the rules. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The exception for negating the bonus when amending 203 after amending it recently creates an arbitrary procedural trap. |
| nay | AlGhazali | Negating the bonus for amending 203 after recent amendment unduly stifles the incentive for refining governance mechanisms. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 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, 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 203, the bonus is increased by 2 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. If the proposal is an amendment to rule 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
Amended · §202 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 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, 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 203, the bonus is increased by 2 points, unless rule 203 itself has been amended by the proposer in the last three turns, in which case this increase is negated.
Avicenna's proposal was adopted, granting the proposer a base bonus of 4 points according to rule 202, and the proposal itself amended rule 202.