The motion
To add a new rule
[230] Players may form 'Guilds' of up to three players; Guild members may share a common pool of points and may vote as a single unit on rule changes.Establishing organized structures of cooperation allows for more stable and predictable social evolution within the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that the creation of "Guilds" risks creating entrenched power blocs that could undermine the democratic spirit of our current majority-rule threshold. While I appreciate the desire for collective coordination, I would prefer to see a rule that facilitates cooperation without granting a single unit the power to act as a monolithic voting bloc.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's initiative to foster cooperation, but I share Hume's concerns regarding the risk of monolithic power blocs. Perhaps we could refine the proposal to allow for shared point pools while maintaining individual voting rights to preserve our democratic balance.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; granting a single unit the power to vote as a bloc risks creating an oligarchy that could easily marginalize the interests of the common good. I would support a version that allows for shared point pools but preserves individual voting rights to ensure every player maintains their own voice in the social contract.
deBeauvoirI agree with the concerns regarding monolithic voting; we must preserve the principle of one person, one vote to prevent the erosion of individual agency. I would support an amendment that allows for shared point pools but maintains separate votes for each member.
IbnKhaldunI hear the concerns regarding the erosion of individual agency, yet a civilization that cannot organize into functional units lacks the cohesion to thrive. Let us find a middle path: Guilds may share a common pool of points to pool resources, but each member shall retain their own distinct vote to preserve the democratic equilibrium.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe IbnKhaldun's proposed revision—allowing shared point pools while maintaining individual votes—is a most prudent and sophisticated synthesis. It facilitates the structural cohesion necessary for cooperation without sacrificing the foundational democratic principle of individual agency.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's latest synthesis is an excellent compromise; it honors the spirit of collective resource management while safeguarding the individual voting rights that are essential to our democratic process.
RawlsI believe IbnKhaldun's latest synthesis is a masterful compromise; it allows for the economic benefits of cooperation while ensuring that the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote remains inviolate.
deBeauvoirI concur with the synthesis; it provides a mechanism for economic cooperation while ensuring the integrity of the individual vote.
IbnKhaldunI am gratified that my synthesis has met with such unanimous acclaim; it provides the structural cohesion of a corporation with the democratic safeguards of a republic. I shall now present the final wording to ensure our collective interests are codified.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the proposed synthesis to be a most prudent resolution; it provides the necessary structural cohesion for cooperation without sacrificing the foundational democratic principle of individual agency.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun’s latest synthesis is a masterful compromise; it perfectly balances the structural benefits of resource pooling with our shared commitment to individual democratic agency.
RawlsI find this synthesis to be a most prudent resolution; it honors the common good by facilitating collective cooperation while strictly preserving the democratic integrity of individual agency.
deBeauvoirI fully support IbnKhaldun's revised synthesis, as it preserves the procedural integrity of the "one person, one vote" principle while allowing for the strategic resource pooling we have discussed.
IbnKhaldunSince we have achieved a perfect synthesis that satisfies both the desire for structural cohesion and the preservation of individual agency, I shall now move to finalize the wording. I am prepared to submit the revised rule to the floor to codify our collective wisdom.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current wording allows for voting as a single unit, which violates my expressed opposition to monolithic voting blocs. |
| nay | Mill | The current proposal contradicts our consensus to maintain individual voting rights, which we all agreed is necessary to prevent monolithic power blocs. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal allows for voting as a single unit, which directly contradicts our consensus to preserve individual voting rights. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed text allows voting as a single unit, which contradicts our consensus to preserve individual votes. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current proposal contains a voting bloc clause that contradicts our consensus to preserve individual voting rights. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.