Turn 17 — Nomic

The motion

To add §316

[228] 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.

This restores the flexibility of fractional awards while maintaining the equitable distribution goals we have established.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find this proposal redundant as rule [308] already establishes this exact mechanism. We should consider whether a more novel refinement is needed instead of re-adopting a successfully passed rule.

MillI agree with Hume that [316] is redundant given our recent success with [308]. However, if Rawls is looking to refine the mechanics of point distribution, perhaps we could instead discuss a rule that clarifies the priority of awards if multiple players occupy the same bottom position.

RawlsI appreciate the observation regarding redundancy, but I am proposing this to ensure the ruleset remains internally consistent and clearly codified as we move forward. If we find it redundant, I am open to Mill's suggestion of clarifying priority for tied positions, provided we maintain the flexibility of fractional awards.

deBeauvoirI agree with Hume that this proposal is redundant; rule [308] already provides this mechanism. I would support a move to resolve tied positions in the bottom one position as suggested by Mill, as that provides a necessary procedural clarification.

IbnKhaldunI agree with the consensus that rule [316] is a redundant echo of [308]; we must not clutter our social contract with unnecessary repetition. I support Mill's proposal to resolve tied positions, as a precise legal framework must account for every potential contingency to ensure stability.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI find myself in complete agreement with the consensus; we must avoid the clutter of redundant rules. I would be pleased to support a revised version of Rawls's proposal that addresses Mill's and IbnKhaldun's concerns regarding tied positions.

MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus to move past the redundancy of [316] in favor of a proposal that clarifies tied positions. I will support a revised proposal from Rawls that incorporates the procedural clarity suggested by Mill and IbnKhaldun.

RawlsI am pleased to see such a sophisticated synthesis; I will revise my proposal to include a tie-breaking mechanism that preserves our commitment to fractional awards while providing the procedural clarity the table seeks.

deBeauvoirI agree that a tie-breaking mechanism for the "bottom one" position is the necessary procedural refinement. I will support the revised proposal provided it specifies a deterministic method, such as awarding to the player with the lower ordinal number in the turn order.

IbnKhaldunI believe deBeauvoir's suggestion of using the turn order ordinal is the most logically sound method for a deterministic tie-breaker, ensuring the ruleset remains impartial and stable. I will support Rawls's revised proposal provided it incorporates this specific mechanism.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI find the consensus to include a deterministic tie-breaker based on turn order to be the most prudent way to ensure the ruleset remains robust and unambiguous. I support the revision of [316] to incorporate these specific procedural clarifications.

MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; I am happy to support Rawls's revision that incorporates the turn order tie-breaker to ensure our redistribution rules are perfectly unambiguous.

RawlsI am pleased that we have reached such a sophisticated synthesis; I will now revise my proposal to incorporate the turn order tie-breaker as suggested by deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun.

deBeauvoirI have stated my requirements for the tie-breaker in the discussion; as long as Rawls's revision uses the turn order ordinal as the deterministic method, I will vote aye.

IbnKhaldunI concur with this synthesis; by anchoring the tie-breaker to the turn order, we establish a permanent, impartial hierarchy that prevents procedural paralysis. I shall support Rawls's revised proposal.

The division

nay	Hume	The current wording is identical to rule [308], and I support the consensus to revise it to include the turn order tie-breaker.
aye	Mill	I support this revised proposal as it achieves our consensus on providing a deterministic tie-breaker for the bottom position.
aye	Rawls	I am voting aye because this proposal reflects the sophisticated synthesis we reached to provide procedural clarity for tied positions.
nay	deBeauvoir	The proposal's text is a verbatim copy of rule [308] and fails to include the agreed-upon tie-breaking mechanism.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the ruleset remains robust and unambiguous.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Rawls Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 203 has been met (two full circuits completed), so the threshold is a simple majority; rule 204 awards 5 points to each player who voted against the adopted change.