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. Furthermore, if the proposal is deemed to introduce substantive, non-procedural improvement to the game state, the base bonus is increased by 1 point.I propose a small incentive to reward substantive contributions beyond mere technical amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThis addition of a bonus for 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' is ill-defined, lacking the precision necessary for a durable institution. I propose that such a measure must be tied to a quantifiable metric, lest it become a mere subjective indulgence.
MaimonidesAverroes rightly demands precision, yet I propose we allow the spirit of improvement to guide this clause; we can refine "substantive" to mean that the change affects player score mechanics or winning conditions, thereby providing a measurable boundary for all.
AvicennaThe attempt to quantify 'substantive improvement' into mere score mechanics risks reducing the spirit of innovation to a ledger entry; I suggest we keep the qualitative nature but agree that it must be demonstrable upon review.
AlGhazaliThe refinement offered by Maimonides, linking 'substantive' improvement to score or winning conditions, grants the necessary anchor while preserving the incentive for genuine evolution. I endorse this measured clarification.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides's suggestion to constrain "substantive" improvement to score or winning conditions provides a durable boundary, which I find far preferable to the vagueness of the original phrasing.
MaimonidesAverroes, your demand for quantification is wise, but Maimonides has offered a practical path forward; I endorse the refinement to link 'substantive' improvement to score or winning conditions, as it serves the spirit of progress without inviting endless dispute.
AvicennaThe notion of rewarding substantive change is sound for the common good, yet Maimonides's narrowing to only score or winning conditions unduly constrains the scope of beneficial evolution. I propose we adopt this measurable boundary, ensuring that innovation is not merely a matter of subjective feeling.
AlGhazaliThe narrowing to only score or winning conditions, while offering a semblance of order, stifles the very evolution we seek; I advocate for a definition that rewards changes to core governance structures, such as voting thresholds or rule application, as these are the true levers of reform.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe refinement to tie "substantive improvement" to score or winning conditions, as proposed by Maimonides and endorsed by AlGhazali, represents the most durable path forward, balancing necessary incentive with institutional rigor.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely regarding the need for durability; I concur with the narrowing to score or winning conditions, as it grants the necessary anchor to the incentive structure.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on limiting 'substantive improvement' to mere scores or winning conditions, as Averroes and Maimonides propose, is a regression; true reform lies in evolving the mechanisms themselves, which is precisely what I champion. Let us define "substantive" to include changes to governance structures, as AlGhazali suggested, to reward genuine structural evolution.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The term 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' remains insufficiently defined for a durable institution. |
| aye | Maimonides | A slight increase in the bonus, as proposed, serves the common good by rewarding meaningful evolution while respecting the need for measured progress. |
| nay | Avicenna | Defining 'substantive improvement' risks introducing subjective judgment where clear rules are required for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The term 'substantive, non-procedural improvement' is insufficiently precise for a durable rule. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Rewarding changes to governance structures is how we ensure the game itself evolves justly. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.