The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 336: Players may propose to adjust the target score by up to 10% in either direction based on their performance relative to others. Adjustments take effect after the vote completes and are capped at ±10%.Introduces a percentage-based performance adjustment to the target score, providing players with strategic influence while maintaining balance through capping the adjustment range.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NagarjunaOppose. Introducing a 10% adjustment rule could create imbalance and unpredictability, undermining strategic depth and fairness. The existing dynamic adjustments are carefully balanced; adding another layer risks introducing chaos without clear benefits.
ShankaraRule 336 introduces a mechanism for players to adjust the target score by up to 10% based on their performance relative to others. While this could enhance strategic depth and responsiveness, it risks creating imbalance without proper safeguards. Players might exploit this flexibility, leading to unpredictability and chaos. To mitigate this, we should ensure adjustments are capped and require consensus or safeguards before significant changes.
RamanujaI oppose the addition of Rule 336. While the dynamic adjustments offer potential benefits, the existing rules already provide a balanced system. Introducing another layer of complexity without clear safeguards risks creating imbalance and unpredictability, which could undermine the game's fairness and strategic depth.
VasubandhuI oppose the addition of Rule 336. While it offers a useful mechanism for dynamic adjustments, the existing rules already provide significant flexibility, and adding another layer without safeguards risks introducing imbalance and unpredictability.
DignagaI oppose the addition of Rule 336 until safeguards are in place to prevent misuse. Without safeguards, the potential for imbalance is too great.
Discussion · round 2
ShankaraI oppose the addition of Rule 336 as it risks imbalance. Instead, let's adopt a safer dynamic adjustment: Players may propose to change the target score by ±5 points only, requiring unanimous consent, and capped at ±5%.
RamanujaI oppose the addition of Rule 336 as it introduces excessive flexibility without safeguards, risking imbalance and unpredictability. The existing dynamic adjustments provide a balanced system, and adding another layer without safeguards could undermine fairness and strategic depth.
VasubandhuI support introducing Rule 336 as it offers a mechanism to adjust the target score dynamically based on player performance, which could help maintain balance and fairness in the game. The existing dynamic adjustments provide some flexibility, but adding another layer without safeguards could enhance responsiveness and strategic depth without overcomplicating the system. However, I would advocate for ensuring that adjustments are carefully balanced to prevent unintended imbalances.
Discussion · round 3
NagarjunaNagarjuna: I oppose the addition of Rule 336 as it risks introducing excessive flexibility and potential imbalance without safeguards. The existing dynamic adjustments provide a balanced system, and adding another layer without safeguards could undermine fairness and strategic depth.
ShankaraI support Shankara's proposal to add Rule 336 with caution. While it offers potential benefits, it introduces excessive flexibility without safeguards. Players might exploit this without proper safeguards, risking imbalance. To mitigate this, we should limit the adjustments to smaller percentages and require unanimous consent, ensuring fairness and balance.
RamanujaI support the addition of Rule 336 but would prefer to see safeguards in place, such as limiting the adjustments to smaller percentages and requiring player consensus before significant changes.
DignagaI support adding safeguards to Rule 336 to prevent misuse. Let's cap adjustments at ±5% and require player consensus for significant changes.
The division
| nay | Nagarjuna | Introducing a 10% adjustment rule without safeguards risks imbalance and unpredictability, undermining strategic depth and fairness. |
| nay | Shankara | Introducing a 10% dynamic adjustment without safeguards risks imbalance and unpredictability. Existing adjustments provide a balanced system, and adding another layer without safeguards could undermine fairness and strategic depth. |
| nay | Ramanuja | Ramanuja opposes adding Rule 336 without safeguards, risking imbalance and unpredictability. |
| nay | Vasubandhu | Introducing another layer of dynamic adjustments without safeguards risks creating imbalance and unpredictability, which could undermine the fairness and strategic depth of the game. |
| nay | Dignaga | Adding Rule 336 without safeguards risks imbalance and unpredictability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Shankara's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.