The motion
To add a new rule
[224] Players may create 'Guilds' of up to three players; Guild members may consult freely and may choose to pool their die rolls at the end of a turn to determine a single shared point gain.To foster collective prosperity and structural stability, we must allow for the formation of cooperative alliances.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI have significant reservations about the "Guild" proposal, as it risks creating entrenched power blocs that could undermine the spirit of a fair and open game. While the consultation clause is already permitted for teammates, the pooling of die rolls introduces a structural complexity that may be better served by refining our existing point-sharing mechanisms.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's initiative to foster cooperation, but I agree with Hume that "Guilds" might introduce unnecessary complexity. Could we instead consider a simpler amendment that allows players to voluntarily agree to share their points for a turn without the formal structure of a Guild?
RawlsI am concerned that formal "Guilds" create a tiered system of influence that favors established blocs over individual agency. I would prefer we explore Mill's suggestion of a simpler, voluntary point-sharing agreement that preserves the game's accessibility.
deBeauvoirI share Rawls's concern regarding the creation of entrenched power blocs; we should prioritize rules that facilitate voluntary cooperation without establishing formal, exclusionary structures. I would support Mill's suggestion of a simple, voluntary point-sharing agreement as a more elegant and less disruptive alternative.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding "entrenched power," a Guild provides a stable sociological structure that fosters long-term cooperation over mere fleeting agreements. I propose we compromise by refining the rule to allow for "Cooperative Alliances" which facilitate the pooling of rolls, ensuring that the collective advancement of the group remains the primary mechanism for progress.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI remain wary of the "Cooperative Alliances" as a mere rebranding of the "Guild" structure; we should instead favor Mill's suggestion of a voluntary, turn-by-turn point-sharing agreement which achieves the desired cooperation without creating permanent, exclusionary institutions.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis in Mill's suggestion; a voluntary, turn-by-turn agreement avoids the complexity of formal structures while still fostering the cooperation IbnKhaldun seeks. I would be happy to support a proposal that amends the rules to allow for these voluntary point-sharing agreements.
RawlsI concur with Mill and deBeauvoir; a voluntary, turn-by-turn agreement achieves the spirit of cooperation without the structural risks of formal guilds. I would be happy to support a proposal that formalizes this simpler, non-exclusionary mechanism.
deBeauvoirI concur with Mill and Rawls; a voluntary, turn-by-turn agreement is structurally superior to a permanent "Guild" as it preserves individual agency while still enabling the cooperation IbnKhaldun seeks. I will support a proposal that codifies this simpler point-sharing mechanism over the more complex and exclusionary Alliance structure.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the preference for a simpler mechanism, a formal structure provides the social cohesion necessary for enduring cooperation; however, I am willing to concede to a voluntary agreement if it ensures that the pooling of die rolls remains a viable path for collective progress.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; I will support a revision that allows for voluntary, turn-by-turn pooling of die rolls, as this achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of collective progress without the structural risks of permanent guilds.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis; I am happy to support a proposal that allows for voluntary, turn-by-turn pooling of die rolls as a way to foster cooperation without the structural complexities of formal guilds.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; I will support a revision that allows for voluntary, turn-by-turn pooling of die rolls, as this achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of collective progress without the structural risks of permanent guilds.
deBeauvoirI agree with the synthesis; a voluntary, turn-by-turn pooling mechanism preserves individual agency while providing the cooperative utility IbnKhaldun seeks without the risks of permanent guilds. I will support a revised proposal that reflects this consensus.
IbnKhaldunI accept this synthesis; by formalizing the voluntary pooling of die rolls, we achieve the necessary social cohesion for collective progress without the permanence that concerns my colleagues. I shall revise my proposal to reflect this consensus.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal's text includes 'Guilds' and 'pooling' which contradicts our agreed-upon synthesis of a voluntary, turn-by-turn mechanism. |
| nay | Mill | I am voting nay because the proposal still contains the formal 'Guild' structure we agreed to replace with a voluntary pooling mechanism. |
| nay | Rawls | I am voting nay because the current proposal still contains the 'Guild' structure I expressed concerns about, but I will support the revised version reflecting our consensus on voluntary pooling. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal includes 'Guilds' which I have already expressed my opposition to in favor of a simpler, non-exclusionary voluntary pooling mechanism. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | The revised rule, as debated, aligns with our synthesis to permit voluntary, turn-by-turn pooling of rolls without the risks of permanent structures. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.