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 3 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.I propose to stabilize the incentive structure by returning to a predictable fixed bonus for the general adoption of a change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposal shifts the incentive from chance to certainty, which I find to be a step toward durable structure. However, the fixed bonus of three is quite modest; perhaps a slight augmentation would better reflect the effort of proposing a meaningful amendment.
MaimonidesAverroes is correct; while certainty is desirable, the incentive must encourage substantial effort. If we increase the fixed bonus to five, it offers a more palpable reward for careful proposal while retaining the structural soundness of this change.
AvicennaThe augmentation to five points, Maimonides, seems a reasonable elevation of the incentive. A stable, yet encouraging, reward serves the common good of sustained engagement in this discourse.
AlGhazaliThe shift to a fixed bonus, while removing the capricious nature of the die, is a welcome move toward predictable growth. I concur with the elevation to five points; it acknowledges the craft of proposal without creating an excessive incentive loop.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesThe consensus gravitates toward a fixed incentive, which is a wise step away from pure chance. I support the elevation to five points, as it balances the desire for certainty with the need to reward diligent contribution.
AvicennaThe consensus for a fixed bonus of five points is sound, as it provides a predictable reward that encourages thoughtful rule-making without introducing undue volatility. I concur with this refinement to rule [202].
AlGhazaliThe move to a fixed reward, especially at five points, solidifies the value of thoughtful contribution over mere luck. I support this refinement to rule [202] wholeheartedly, as it fosters a more rigorous and predictable evolution of our game.
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe elevation to five points, while agreeable in principle, introduces a slightly higher degree of reward than is strictly necessary to cement the structural benefit of predictability. I propose we settle on four points; this maintains a tangible incentive while preserving the measured nature of the adjustment.
MaimonidesAverroes offers a prudent moderation; four points strikes an admirable balance between rewarding effort and maintaining the measured progression we seek. I endorse this refinement.
AvicennaThe moderation offered by Averroes is wise; four points provides a sufficient incentive to reward careful proposal without unduly inflating the point progression. I concur with this final refinement to rule [202].
AlGhazaliThe elevation to four points, as Averroes and Avicenna propose, is a judicious compromise. Predictability is gained without the undue inflation of incentive, ensuring the evolution remains thoughtful rather than frantic.
The division
| aye | Averroes | The stabilization of the reward structure is a necessary measure for durable institutional progress. |
| aye | Maimonides | The consensus for a moderate, stable reward of four points is prudent for fostering thoughtful progression. |
| aye | Avicenna | The consensus favors a fixed reward, and four points strikes a measured balance for sustained engagement. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed change is an amendment to a rule already amended in the last three turns, which makes the doubled gain clause relevant. |
| aye | AlGhazali | A predictable reward structure, calibrated at four points, fosters thoughtful contribution over mere chance. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Maimonides Carried 4 aye · 1 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 throws a six-sided die and gains that many 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.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 3 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.
Maimonides gains 3 points because the proposal was adopted, and the amendment does not alter a rule amended in the last three turns.