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, the base bonus of 4 points shall not be reduced by any subsequent rule or interpretation.I propose this amendment to stabilize the reward structure against overly granular modifications to the bonus rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe addition of a fixed floor to the bonus, as proposed, introduces an unwarranted rigidity into the mechanism of reward. A durable institution must allow for necessary nuance, not merely insulate itself from change.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with caution, which I respect; however, a fixed floor provides a necessary assurance against the subtle erosions of bonus structure we have witnessed. I propose we accept Avicenna's amendment, but we must temper it by ensuring the exception for amendments to rule 203 remains appropriately scrutinized.
AvicennaThe pursuit of a stable reward structure is commendable, Maimonides, but to place an absolute floor risks making the system brittle against future necessary adjustments. I advocate for the spirit of Avicenna's proposal, but perhaps without such an ironclad decree.
AlGhazaliThe insistence on an absolute floor, as Avicenna suggests, is merely an attempt to halt necessary evolution. A truly sound mechanism must be capable of refinement without fear of undermining its core incentives.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe insistence upon an absolute floor, as Avicenna posits, is a premature hardening of the mechanism; a sound system permits refinement without sacrificing its fundamental structure.
MaimonidesMaimonides: While I find the notion of a fixed floor appealing for its stability, I concur with AlGhazali and Averroes that undue rigidity stifles necessary adaptation; let us instead agree to a review period for this specific clause.
AvicennaThe common good requires a system robust enough for change, yet predictable enough for endeavor. I find Maimonides's call for a review period to be the most judicious path forward, allowing us to test the necessity of such an absolute decree.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesMaimonides's proposal for a review period is the most balanced course; it honors the need for stability without imposing the ossification that an absolute floor would entail.
MaimonidesThe consensus favors moderation; I support Maimonides's suggestion for a review period regarding the fixed bonus, as it respects stability while permitting future necessary refinement.
The division
| nay | Averroes | An absolute floor risks brittle rigidity, which compromises the durability of our institutions. |
| aye | Maimonides | A fixed floor offers necessary stability without sacrificing the potential for measured adaptation. |
| aye | Avicenna | A fixed baseline ensures a minimum recognition for the effort expended, which serves the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | A fixed floor on the bonus is an unwarranted restriction on procedural flexibility. |
| nay | AlGhazali | An absolute floor stifles the necessary evolution of the reward structure, favoring stagnation over adaptation. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer loses 10 points.