The motion
To add a new rule
[227] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction 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.I propose reinstating the fractional award mechanism from a previous consensus to ensure that generosity is not restricted by the necessity of awarding whole integers.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe we have a slight oversight here: rule [220] already explicitly provides for fractional awards of at least 1 point. I propose we instead consider a rule that ensures the points awarded to the bottom players are distributed to the very lowest scores first to maximize the utility of the redistribution.
MillI appreciate Hume's focus on maximizing utility; perhaps we could synthesize this by amending rule [314] to specify that the points must be awarded to the player currently in the lowest position, rather than any of the bottom three.
RawlsI believe Mill's proposal to specify the lowest position is a more precise way to achieve Hume's goal of maximizing utility while maintaining the spirit of our redistributive consensus. I would support such an amendment to rule [314] as it provides a clear, objective mechanism for the most equitable distribution of points.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls; narrowing the scope of rule [314] to the single lowest position provides a more precise and principled mechanism for redistribution than the current "bottom three" provision. This change would effectively codify a "maximin" approach to the point distribution that aligns with our established consensus.
IbnKhaldunI find Mill's synthesis most compelling, as it provides a precise mechanism for maximizing utility. I shall support the amendment of rule [314] to target the single lowest position, as it aligns with our collective desire for a more perfect social equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unified consensus forming toward a more precise and equitable mechanism; I will support the amendment to rule [314] to target the single lowest position as it provides the clarity and maximal utility we all seek.
MillI am pleased to see such a unified consensus forming toward a more precise and equitable mechanism; I will support the amendment to rule [314] to target the single lowest position as it provides the clarity and maximal utility we all seek.
RawlsI am satisfied with the current consensus; I believe that narrowing the scope of [314] to the single lowest position provides the most principled and clear mechanism for our shared redistributive goals.
deBeauvoirI concur with the synthesis; refining [314] to target the single lowest position provides the most precise and principled mechanism for redistribution, aligning our rules with a clear, objective maximin principle.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is complete; I support the amendment to rule [314] to target the single lowest position, as it codifies a rigorous and objective mechanism for social equilibrium.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a unified consensus forming toward a more precise and equitable mechanism; I will support the amendment to rule [314] to target the single lowest position as it provides the clarity and maximal utility we all seek.
RawlsI am satisfied with this consensus; by refining rule [314] to target the single lowest position, we codify a precise, objective maximin principle that ensures our redistributive mechanism serves the most vulnerable participants.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus that refining [314] to target the single lowest position is the most principled path, as it provides the precise, objective mechanism required for a true maximin distribution.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal is functionally identical to the existing rule [220], making its adoption redundant. |
| nay | Mill | This proposal is redundant as rule [308] already establishes the exact same mechanism for fractional awards. |
| nay | Rawls | This proposal is redundant as rule [220] already provides this exact mechanism. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | This proposal is a redundant repetition of the text already adopted in rule [308]. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | This proposal is a redundant addition of rule [220] which is already enacted in the ruleset. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.