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, and this bonus increase is not applicable if the proposal is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns.This clarifies the interaction between the bonus for amending 203 and the penalty for repeating defeated proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides, while the desire to refine the structure is noted, tying the bonus increase for amending [203] to the condition of identical defeat is an overly granular mechanism that risks undermining the principle of consistent reward. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, I commend your caution against excessive granularity; however, preventing a repeat offense from gaining a bonus seems a necessary refinement to maintain the integrity of the reward structure, a point which benefits all players seeking prudent conduct.
AvicennaAverroes, while the principle of consistent reward is vital, Maimonides's addition adds a layer of complexity that may obscure the core incentive. I suggest we simplify this by removing the exception entirely, thus ensuring a clear, stable reward for addressing rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesAverroes: The proposed clarification is an attempt to patch a complexity rather than strengthen the foundation; I urge against such fine-grained amendments to the incentive structure.
MaimonidesAvicenna, I appreciate your call for simplicity, but removing the exception risks rewarding the very repetition that frustrates prudent play; Averroes, perhaps we can find a middle ground that maintains the integrity of the reward without such fine detail.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAvicenna, your call for simplicity is wise, yet Maimonides's refinement prevents a perverse incentive; we might instead agree to remove the entire clause regarding the bonus increase for amending 203, thereby achieving simplicity while respecting the original intent.
AvicennaAvicenna: Maimonides, your proposed refinement is a small accretion of complexity; I concur with Averroes that simplicity is the truest form of order, and I support removing the entire bonus increase clause for amending rule 203.
AlGhazaliThe pursuit of simplicity, as Avicenna suggests, risks sacrificing necessary nuance; I favor Maimonides's proposed clause to ensure that diligence toward systemic improvement is not undermined by trivial repetition.
The division
| nay | Averroes | This added condition on the bonus for amending 203 introduces an unwarranted layer of procedural complexity. |
| aye | Maimonides | The addition of the final clause honors the need to prevent rewarding needless repetition while maintaining the reward for addressing rule 203. |
| nay | Avicenna | The addition of a new exception to the bonus structure only complicates the incentive without adding substantial benefit to the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed addition complicates the procedural incentives without establishing necessary logical rigor. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Nuance is the scaffolding of true progress, and this refinement protects diligent systemic work. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.