The motion
To add a new rule
[222] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a percentage of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.This provides the structural flexibility needed for nuanced redistribution while maintaining the integrity of the score's discrete nature.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; this proposal is functionally identical to the text of rule [220] already adopted in turn 8, and its inclusion would create a redundant conflict that we should avoid. I move that we reject this as it provides no new utility to the existing ruleset.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; since rule [220] is already in force and provides this exact functionality, adding [222] would create unnecessary redundancy. We should maintain the ruleset's clarity by declining this proposal.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; introducing a rule that mirrors [220] exactly would create a redundant conflict and clutter the ruleset without providing any new utility. For the sake of clarity and the common good of the game's structure, we should reject this proposal.
deBeauvoirI agree with the others; rule [220] already provides the requested functionality. Adopting a redundant rule would only serve to create unnecessary complexity and potential conflict in our procedural framework.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the logic of the others, I must observe that rule [220] was adopted as an amendment to the sequence, and as a reformer, I seek to ensure the ruleset remains robust against future contradictions; however, if the table agrees that [220] already satisfies the desired mechanism, I shall yield to the sake of clarity.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's willingness to yield for the sake of clarity; I believe we have reached a solid consensus that rule [220] provides the necessary functionality without the need for further redundancy.
IbnKhaldunI see that my proposal mirrors rule [220] in substance, yet my intent was to ensure the mechanism of fractional distribution remains a permanent fixture of our social contract. Since the consensus is that [220] already fulfills this purpose, I shall yield to preserve the elegance and clarity of our laws.
The division
| nay | Hume | Rule [222] is functionally redundant to the already adopted rule [220] and serves no purpose other than to clutter the ruleset. |
| nay | Mill | As the consensus is already established, I support the others in rejecting this redundant rule to maintain clarity. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal is redundant as rule [220] already provides the functionality for fractional awards. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | Rule [220] already provides the desired functionality, making this proposal redundant and structurally unnecessary. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | As a reformer, I believe that while the substance is similar, establishing the specific percentage mechanism ensures the permanence of the fractional distribution I champion. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.