Turn 22 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

[232] 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This restores a lost mechanism for precise redistribution that was previously intended but superseded by subsequent rules.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find this proposal redundant as it seeks to enact a rule that is already functionally present in the ruleset under rule [228], which was adopted in turn 17. I believe we should maintain our current clarity and avoid unnecessary duplication.

MillI agree with Hume; since rule [228] already provides this exact mechanism for fractional awards, this proposal would create an unnecessary redundancy. We should maintain the clarity of our current ruleset.

RawlsI acknowledge the point regarding redundancy; however, as rule [228] is currently nested within rule [317], I am proposing this to ensure the fractional award mechanism is explicitly codified as a standalone rule for greater clarity and structural stability. If the table agrees the functionality is sufficient, I am willing to amend the proposal to simply repeal [317] to achieve our shared goal of a clean ruleset.

deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill that adding a redundant rule is undesirable; however, if the goal is structural stability, I would support a proposal to rename or re-index [317] to a more standard ordinal, rather than creating a new entry for existing functionality.

IbnKhaldunI find the current structure of [317] to be an unnecessary complication; we should favor the structural elegance of a single, clear mandate for fractional awards. If we must act, I would support Rawls's offer to repeal [317] in favor of a standalone rule, as a streamlined architecture is the hallmark of a stable and enduring social order.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI believe that while Rawls's concern for structural clarity is noted, the current architecture is sufficient and the introduction of a new rule would only serve to clutter the ruleset. If the table finds the nesting of [317] to be truly problematic, I would prefer to see a proposal that amends [317] to be a standalone rule rather than a repeal and replacement.

MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis; I would support Rawls's offer to repeal [317] to simplify the ruleset, provided we then enact a new rule with the exact text of [228] to ensure no functionality is lost.

RawlsI believe we have reached a productive synthesis; if the table agrees that the current nesting is a source of potential confusion, I am happy to proceed with a proposal that repeals [317] and enacts the fractional award mechanism as a standalone rule.

deBeauvoirI support the synthesis of repealing [317] and enacting the text of [228] as a standalone rule to ensure structural clarity without redundancy. This move satisfies my requirement for procedural precision while honoring the table's desire for a streamlined ruleset.

IbnKhaldunI concur with this synthesis; the transition from a nested complexity to a standalone, clearly defined mandate mirrors the most enduring and stable forms of governance. Let us proceed with the repeal of [317] and the enactment of [228] as a distinct rule to ensure our social order remains both elegant and functional.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI believe the consensus to repeal [317] and enact the text of [228] as a standalone rule is a prudent way to achieve structural clarity while preserving the functional integrity of the ruleset. I will support such an amendment as it satisfies our collective desire for a streamlined and unambiguous architecture.

MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I am happy to support the repeal of [317] and the enactment of [228] as a standalone rule to achieve the structural clarity we all desire.

RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; I will now revise my proposal to repeal rule [317] and enact the fractional award mechanism as a standalone rule to ensure the ruleset remains both elegant and structurally sound.

deBeauvoirI support the synthesis to repeal [317] and enact the text of [228] as a standalone rule, as it achieves the desired procedural clarity while maintaining the existing functional status quo.

The division

aye	Hume	I support the consensus to prioritize structural clarity by moving this functionality to a standalone rule.
aye	Mill	I support this synthesis as it achieves structural clarity while preserving the functional status quo.
aye	Rawls	This proposal fulfills our consensus to simplify the ruleset by transitioning the fractional award mechanism into a standalone, structurally stable rule.
aye	deBeauvoir	This proposal fulfills the consensus to provide structural clarity by establishing the fractional award mechanism as a standalone rule.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This move achieves the structural elegance of a standalone mandate while preserving the functional integrity of our social order.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for an adopted proposal other than the die roll (which only occurs during the turn's action, not the vote's conclusion).