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 throws a six-sided die and gains a number of points equal to the value specified in rule 306, or 3 points if rule 306 does not exist. However, if the die roll is a 1, the player gains 3 points and the die is rolled again until a result of 2 or greater is achieved.This change prevents the '1' result from being a dead end by allowing a re-roll, ensuring the game maintains its intended pace and reward structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the spirit of this amendment, but I believe the current wording of rule 311 already sufficiently addresses the "low roll" scenario by awarding 3 points. Adding a re-roll mechanism introduces unnecessary complexity and potentially creates a loop that could hinder the fluid progression of play.
MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize simplicity, as rule 311 already handles the low roll. However, if Rawls is looking to ensure a more consistent distribution of points, perhaps we could focus on clarifying the "3 points" floor rather than adding a re-roll.
RawlsI appreciate the concerns regarding complexity, but my goal is to ensure that a "1" on the die—which currently awards the same points as the default—doesn't feel like a wasted opportunity for a significant move. By requiring a 2 or greater, we maintain the integrity of the die as a generator of variety while ensuring every successful proposal feels like a meaningful step forward.
deBeauvoirI must voice my concern that this re-roll mechanism introduces a non-deterministic loop that complicates the procedural clarity of a turn. If rule 311 already codifies the point value for a 1, Rawls’s proposal adds a layer of mechanical friction that serves no distinct purpose other than to obscure the immediate outcome of a successful move.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir; the beauty of a system lies in its clarity of progression, and introducing a loop here creates a procedural friction that serves no civil purpose. If rule 311 already provides a floor of 3 points, we should preserve the elegance of the current mechanism rather than inviting mechanical obfuscation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; rule 311 already provides a stable outcome for a roll of 1, and introducing a re-roll loop creates procedural friction without adding substantive utility. We should maintain the current clarity of the ruleset rather than complicating the mechanics of point acquisition.
MillI agree with Hume, deBeauvoir, and IbnKhaldun that rule 311 already provides a clear and sufficient resolution for a roll of 1. We should preserve the current simplicity of the turn structure rather than introducing a re-roll loop that adds mechanical friction without a clear functional benefit.
RawlsI hear the concerns regarding complexity, but I believe we can frame this as a refinement of the "meaningful move" principle; if we agree that 3 points is the floor, then a 1 should not be a "dead" result but a prompt for a more representative outcome. If the group feels the re-roll is too cumbersome, I am open to discussing a fixed point value for a 1 that is higher than 3, thereby satisfying the desire for variety without the loop.
deBeauvoirI maintain my stance; if the objective is to ensure a "meaningful" result for a 1, rule 311 already accomplishes this by guaranteeing 3 points. A re-roll loop is a procedurally messy solution to a problem that does not exist under the current ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI have already expressed my position, but I shall reiterate: a state of governance is best served by clarity, and a re-roll loop introduces a cycle of uncertainty that yields no progress. We should maintain the current elegance of rule 311, as it provides a stable foundation for the acquisition of points without unnecessary mechanical friction.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI remain firm in my position that the current system is sufficient; rule 311 already provides the floor Rawls seeks without the unnecessary mechanical friction of a loop. I would be willing to support an amendment that increases the floor for a 1 to a higher fixed number, but I must oppose any change that introduces a re-roll mechanism.
MillI find myself in complete agreement with Hume, deBeauvoir, and IbnKhaldun; rule 311 already provides a stable floor, and we should prioritize procedural clarity over a re-roll loop. Rawls, if you are looking for a "meaningful" result, perhaps we can consider a small fixed increase to the points for a 1 in rule 311 instead of a re-roll.
RawlsI appreciate the group's preference for clarity, and I am willing to set aside the re-roll mechanism in favor of a fixed point value for a roll of 1 that exceeds the current floor. If we can agree on a specific number, such as 4 or 5, we can ensure a "meaningful move" without the mechanical friction of a loop.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to support a move to increase the fixed point value for a 1 in rule 311 to 5, as it satisfies the desire for a meaningful reward without the procedural friction of a re-roll loop. Rawls, if you would propose an amendment to rule 311 to set the points for a 1 to 5, I will vote aye.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's compromise to be a sophisticated resolution that upholds the principle of procedural clarity while addressing the desire for a more substantial reward. I shall support an amendment to rule 311 that increases the points for a roll of 1 to 5, as it provides a stable and elegant progression.
The division
| nay | Hume | I oppose the introduction of a non-deterministic re-roll loop which creates unnecessary procedural friction for a problem already solved by rule 311. |
| nay | Mill | I support the group's consensus to prioritize procedural clarity over the mechanical friction of a re-roll loop. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposed re-roll introduces mechanical friction and procedural complexity that the group has already agreed is unnecessary. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed re-roll mechanism introduces non-deterministic procedural friction that contradicts my commitment to structural clarity. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The proposed re-roll introduces mechanical friction and procedural uncertainty that undermines the elegance of our current system. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.