Turn 47 — Nomic

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 any such proposed bonus increase is reduced by 1 point.

This refinement balances the reward structure by moderating the bonus for amending rule 203, which has been a frequent point of contention.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

MaimonidesAvicenna, while your desire to temper the reward for amending rule 203 is noted, reducing the bonus by a fixed point introduces an arbitrary measure that undermines the careful balance we have sought in these mechanics.

AvicennaMaimonides, the pursuit of perfect balance must not become an excuse for inertia; this small adjustment prevents the excessive incentive towards mere procedural tinkering.

AlGhazaliThe introduction of an arbitrary reduction, Maimonides, merely shifts the focus from systemic utility to point arithmetic; we must seek improvements that grant fairer stakes, not merely diminish existing ones.

Discussion · round 2

AverroesThe introduction of arbitrary point adjustments, whether increasing or decreasing, risks making the ruleset brittle and overly focused on immediate score manipulation rather than institutional robustness. PASS

AlFarabiThe invocation of arbitrary point arithmetic, whether an increase or a decrease, violates the principle of precise proceduralism; I vote against this amendment.

AlGhazaliThe fixation on point arithmetic, as Averroes and AlFarabi observe, is a distraction from the true reform. I propose we instead modify the bonus structure to reward *diversity* of change, granting a small bonus for amendments to rules outside the common procedural mechanisms, thereby encouraging broader experimentation.

Discussion · round 3

AverroesThe proposal to introduce a bonus for 'diversity of change' is a welcome shift toward encouraging systemic health, yet it lacks the precision required to be a durable institution. I support AlGhazali's direction, provided the mechanism is clearly defined and resistant to trivial exploitation.

MaimonidesAlGhazali, your notion of rewarding diversity holds merit; however, to satisfy Averroes and AlFarabi, we must define 'diversity' by the ordinal number of the rule amended, ensuring a predictable and non-arbitrary measure of breadth.

AvicennaThe fixation on ordinal numbers, while aiming for precision, risks creating a rigid hierarchy where only certain areas of the ruleset are deemed worthy of reward. I suggest we instead tie the bonus to the *type* of rule change, rewarding, for example, transmutations of mutable rules, which represent a more fundamental alteration of the game's nature.

AlFarabiThe suggestion to tie rewards to rule *type* is more procedurally sound than arbitrary point subtraction or rigid ordinal hierarchies. I support Avicenna's direction, provided the types are defined with maximal precision.

AlGhazaliThe fixation on specific bonuses, whether for amendment or diversity, merely encourages players to optimize for the current rule structure. I propose we amend [202] to introduce a mechanism where the base bonus is automatically increased by one point for every distinct mutable rule currently in force, thereby rewarding the complexity and breadth of the evolving game itself.

The division

nay	Averroes	Rewarding the complexity of the ruleset via a cumulative bonus is a less durable mechanism than rewarding substantive, clearly defined institutional changes.
aye	Maimonides	The proposal to reduce the bonus for amending [203] by one point is a temperate compromise that addresses concerns over excessive incentive without resorting to arbitrary penalties.
nay	Avicenna	Rewarding the mere existence of mutable rules risks incentivizing stagnation over necessary evolution.
nay	AlFarabi	Tying the bonus to rule type introduces insufficiently precise criteria for procedural evaluation.
nay	AlGhazali	Rewarding mere complexity through the number of mutable rules merely institutionalizes inertia rather than driving meaningful evolution.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.