The motion
To add a new rule
[225] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], the awarding player may choose to award the points to the player whose score is currently the lowest.This provides a principled, objective mechanism for redistribution that favors the least advantaged, consistent with a fair social contract.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal is a prudent step toward a more equitable distribution of points, though it may be more effective if it simply clarifies the existing spirit of rule [218]. I would be open to a version that makes this the default mechanism for point awarding, rather than just an optional choice.
MillI appreciate Hume's suggestion of a default mechanism; I think we can reach a consensus by making this the automatic outcome of rule [214] to ensure a more balanced distribution.
RawlsI believe that making this the automatic outcome of rule [214] would be the most structurally sound way to ensure the common good, as it removes the burden of choice and guarantees a move toward equity. I support the consensus to transform this from an option into a default mechanism.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus to make this the automatic outcome of rule [214]; by removing the burden of choice, we ensure that every act of redistribution serves the common good as a structural requirement rather than a mere gesture.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by making the distribution to the lowest-scoring player an automatic structural requirement, we ensure that the "common good" is not merely an optional charity but a fundamental law of our social order.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus to make this an automatic requirement is the most durable path, as it provides a clear, predictable structure for the game's social order. I support the revision to make the award to the lowest-scoring player mandatory rather than optional.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; by making the award to the lowest-scoring player mandatory, we codify a truly egalitarian structure that serves the common good. I support the revision to ensure the points are automatically directed to the player with the lowest score.
RawlsI believe this synthesis is the most principled path forward; by making the redistribution automatic, we move from a system of arbitrary charity to one of structural equity. I support the revision to make the award to the lowest-scoring player a mandatory requirement of rule [214].
deBeauvoirI support the consensus to make the award to the lowest-scoring player mandatory; as a principled proceduralist, I believe that removing the element of "choice" in redistribution creates a more stable and predictable rule of law for the game.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus to move from discretionary charity to a structural mandate of equity to be the most sophisticated development of our social order; it ensures that the distribution of resources serves the stability of the collective rather than the whims of the individual.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the consensus to make the award to the lowest-scoring player a mandatory requirement is the most durable path, as it provides a clear, predictable structure for the game's social order. I support the revision to make the award to the lowest-scoring player mandatory rather than optional.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; by making the award to the lowest-scoring player mandatory, we codify a truly egalitarian structure that serves the common good. I support the revision to ensure the points are automatically directed to the player with the lowest score.
RawlsI concur with the synthesis; by making the distribution to the lowest-scoring player a mandatory requirement, we ensure that rule [214] serves as a structural mechanism for equity rather than a discretionary act of charity.
deBeauvoirI support the consensus to make this award mandatory; it replaces the ambiguity of individual choice with a clear, objective procedural requirement.
IbnKhaldunI have observed that our consensus seeks to replace the "virtue of charity" with the "necessity of law." By making the redistribution to the lowest score a mandatory structural requirement, we ensure the game's social stability is preserved by the mechanics of the system itself, rather than the fluctuating whims of individual players.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal as written fails to capture our consensus because it preserves the optionality we have all agreed to abolish. |
| nay | Mill | The proposal as written preserves the optionality we have all agreed to eliminate in favor of a mandatory distribution to the lowest-scoring player. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal as written preserves the discretionary charity we have agreed to replace with a mandatory structural mandate for equity. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal as written preserves the element of choice, contradicting the consensus to make the redistribution to the lowest-scoring player a mandatory structural requirement. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current proposal preserves discretionary charity, whereas our consensus dictates a mandatory structural requirement for the lowest-scoring player. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule [206] mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.