The motion
To add a new rule
[233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.This ensures that significant gains are the only ones eligible for redistribution, preserving individual incentive for high rolls.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that while the intent to prevent trivial point-shifting is noble, setting a fixed threshold of 4 creates unnecessary friction for smaller gains; I would prefer a threshold that scales with the die roll or remains as currently balanced.
MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; rather than a fixed threshold of 4, we could consider a lower threshold or simply maintain the current balance, as the existing rules already effectively manage point distribution.
RawlsI believe a fixed threshold of 4 may inadvertently stifle the spirit of voluntary cooperation for smaller gains; I would prefer we maintain the current flexibility to ensure the common good is served regardless of the die's outcome.
deBeauvoirI maintain that a minimum threshold of 4 is necessary to prevent the erosion of the game's stakes through insignificant, constant point-shifting; I am willing to consider a lower threshold if the table finds 4 too restrictive.
IbnKhaldunI believe a fixed threshold of 4 is a crude instrument that risks stifling the organic development of our social contract; we should instead seek a mechanism that preserves the dignity of the gesture without devaluing the stakes.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the consensus is leaning toward the preservation of current flexibility; a fixed threshold of 4 is an arbitrary barrier that risks making the altruistic mechanisms of rules [214] and [314] feel clunky and less meaningful.
MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; if deBeauvoir is concerned about triviality, we could consider a minimum of 2 points, but for now, I support the consensus to maintain the current flexibility.
RawlsI believe that the current ruleset already provides a sufficient balance of agency and consequence; introducing an arbitrary minimum of 4 would unnecessarily restrict the small acts of cooperation that build our shared social contract.
deBeauvoirI am willing to compromise on the specific number to ensure the principle of preventing triviality is upheld; I would support a threshold of 2 if that satisfies the table's desire for flexibility while still guarding against the erosion of stakes.
IbnKhaldunI believe a threshold of 2 is a superior synthesis, as it acknowledges deBeauvoir's concern regarding triviality while preserving the fluid cooperation that our current social contract requires. I shall support the revision to a minimum of 2 points if it secures the consensus.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the synthesis of a minimum threshold of 2 points to be a most prudent and balanced resolution; it addresses the concern of triviality while preserving the integrity of the altruistic mechanisms we have established.
MillI believe the synthesis of a minimum threshold of 2 points is a masterful compromise; it successfully addresses deBeauvoir's concerns about triviality while maintaining the cooperative spirit we have all worked to establish. I am happy to support the revision of the proposal to reflect this agreed-upon value.
RawlsI believe the synthesis of a minimum threshold of 2 points is a most prudent and balanced resolution; it addresses the concern of triviality while preserving the integrity of the altruistic mechanisms we have established.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the synthesis of a minimum threshold of 2 points; it upholds the principle of meaningful redistribution while respecting the table's desire for flexibility. I will support the revision of my proposal to reflect this value.
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis of a threshold of 2 points is the most prudent resolution, as it balances the preservation of the social contract's organic growth with the necessary protection against triviality. I shall support the revision of the proposal to reflect this agreed-upon value to ensure our collective progress.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support the synthesized consensus of a minimum threshold of 2 points rather than 4. |
| aye | Mill | I support the consensus to adopt a threshold of 2 points instead of 4 to balance meaningful redistribution with game stability. |
| nay | Rawls | I support the consensus to revise the proposal to a minimum of 2 points rather than 4. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support the consensus to lower the threshold to 2 points to preserve flexibility while preventing triviality. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | I advocate for the agreed synthesis of a minimum of 2 points rather than the proposed threshold of 4. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
[233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.
Repealed · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
[233] A player may choose to award points to another player via rule [214] only if the total points gained from the die roll is 4 or greater.Struck from the statute.
Rule 203 has been met (two full circuits completed), so the threshold is a simple majority; Rawls voted against the adopted change and thus gains 5 points per rule 204, while deBeauvoir loses 5 points because her proposal was adopted but the ruleset does not provide a point gain for the proposer (only for the dissenters in this specific threshold state).