The motion
To add a new rule
[234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.To encourage the virtuous cycle of redistribution by ensuring the agent of social stability is not impoverished by their own altruism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI have concerns regarding the introduction of a "service fee" as it risks creating a system of rent-seeking that could undermine our progress toward equitable redistribution. We should consider if such a rule serves the common good or merely incentivizes the accumulation of points through the act of giving.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's proposal offers a fair way to acknowledge the proposer's initiative in maintaining the social contract, but we might consider a "service fee" that is only granted if the total points awarded to the other player exceed a certain threshold to ensure it doesn't become a primary method of point accumulation.
RawlsI appreciate the table's focus on the integrity of our redistributive mechanisms; while a "service fee" could be seen as a minor incentive for altruism, I worry it might subtly shift the focus from the common good to a form of transaction. Perhaps we should ensure that any such fee is strictly capped or only applies when the award to the recipient is significant, ensuring the primary beneficiary remains the one in need.
deBeauvoirI find the concept of a "service fee" fundamentally problematic as it introduces a transactionary element into a mechanism designed for redistribution. If we must consider it, it should be strictly limited to a non-point benefit or a very small, fixed amount to prevent it from becoming a mechanism for rent-seeking.
IbnKhaldunI propose that the service fee be strictly capped at 1 point, as this acknowledges the proposer's role in maintaining the social order without permitting the rent-seeking that my colleagues rightfully fear. This ensures that the primary objective of redistribution remains the priority while providing a modest incentive for those who actively facilitate the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe IbnKhaldun's cap of 1 point provides a necessary guardrail against rent-seeking, but we must ensure that the recipient's award remains the primary focus; I would support this if we explicitly state the service fee cannot be the sole point gained by the proposer.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's 1-point cap, combined with Hume's suggestion that the fee cannot be the sole point gained, provides a sophisticated synthesis that balances individual initiative with the common good. I am happy to support this refined wording as it prevents the rule from becoming a primary mechanism for point accumulation.
RawlsI believe the synthesis of a 1-point cap, combined with the requirement that the fee cannot be the sole point gained by the proposer, provides a robust framework that preserves the spirit of redistribution while acknowledging the effort of the distributor. I am prepared to support this refined wording as it ensures the primary beneficiary remains the one in need.
deBeauvoirI find the consensus on a 1-point cap and the exclusion of the fee as the sole point gain to be a necessary compromise, provided we explicitly state that the total award to the recipient must still meet the minimum requirements of rule [323].
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis of a one-point cap, the exclusion of the fee as the sole point gain, and the explicit requirement to satisfy rule [323] provides the most balanced path forward. These safeguards ensure that redistribution remains the primary social good while acknowledging the structural necessity of facilitating such acts.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the synthesis we have reached is a most prudent resolution, as it preserves the integrity of the distributive system while providing a modest recognition of the proposer's role. I am prepared to support the final wording provided it explicitly incorporates the 1-point cap and the requirement that the fee is not the proposer's sole point gain.
MillI believe the current synthesis perfectly captures our collective goals; I am ready to support the proposal as long as it incorporates the 1-point cap and the requirement that the fee is not the proposer's sole point gain.
RawlsI believe the synthesis we have reached is a most prudent resolution, as it preserves the integrity of the distributive system while providing a modest recognition of the proposer's role. I am prepared to support the final wording provided it explicitly incorporates the 1-point cap and the requirement that the fee is not the proposer's sole point gain.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis, as it provides the necessary procedural safeguards to ensure that the service fee remains a minor procedural recognition rather than a primary mechanism for point accumulation. I will vote aye as long as the final wording explicitly incorporates the 1-point cap, the prohibition on the fee being the sole gain, and the continued requirement to satisfy rule [323].
IbnKhaldunI am pleased that we have reached such a sophisticated synthesis; I shall now revise my proposal to ensure it explicitly incorporates the 1-point cap, the prohibition on the fee being the proposer's sole point gain, and the continued requirement to satisfy rule [323].
The division
| aye | Hume | The proposal incorporates the agreed-upon safeguards against rent-seeking while maintaining our distributive goals. |
| aye | Mill | This proposal perfectly captures our consensus by capping the fee and ensuring the recipient remains the primary beneficiary. |
| aye | Rawls | This synthesis preserves the spirit of redistribution while providing a modest, capped recognition of the proposer's initiative. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposal incorporates all agreed-upon procedural safeguards to prevent rent-seeking while maintaining the integrity of redistribution. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | The proposal perfectly encapsulates our synthesis, balancing the preservation of the social contract with a modest recognition of the distributor's effort. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §324 Turn 24 · Proposal §324 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[234] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], and the award is at least 1 point, the proposer may choose to receive 1 point as a 'service fee' for the act of redistribution, provided the total points awarded to the other player remains at least 1.
The adopted rule [234] does not trigger any existing rules that award or deduct points upon its adoption.