The motion
To add a new rule
[235] 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 2 points and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.This provides a more robust mechanism for proportional redistribution while maintaining the minimum threshold established in rule [233].
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find that this proposal is functionally redundant given that rule [322] already provides the mechanism for fractional awards of at least 1 point. Since rule [323] establishes a minimum threshold of 2 points for such awards, I believe the existing ruleset already achieves our desired synthesis.
MillI concur with Hume; since rule [322] allows for fractions and [323] sets the floor at 2 points, this proposal would be redundant. I would be happy to support a revision that clarifies the interaction between [322] and [323] if anyone feels the current wording is ambiguous.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; because rule [322] already permits fractional awards and rule [323] establishes the 2-point minimum, this proposal is functionally redundant. I would support a revision that clarifies the interaction between [322] and [323] to ensure the ruleset remains precise and unambiguous.
deBeauvoirI concur with the others; rule [322] and rule [323] already establish the mechanism for fractional awards with a two-point minimum, making this proposal redundant. I will vote against it to maintain the current procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the logic of the other scholars, the current interaction between [322] and [323] lacks the precise phrasing of my proposal, which serves as a definitive synthesis. I am willing to amend the proposal to [235] to explicitly reference both existing rules to ensure no ambiguity remains for the record.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe that while precision is a virtue, introducing a new rule to describe a state already achieved by the interaction of [322] and [323] risks cluttering our ruleset without adding substance. If we find the current interaction ambiguous, a targeted amendment to one of those rules would be a more durable and measured approach than enacting a redundant third rule.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; since our goal is a lean and precise ruleset, we should avoid redundancy by refining the existing rules rather than adding a third. I would be happy to support a minor amendment to rule [322] or [323] if we find the current phrasing requires more clarity.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; the current ruleset already achieves the desired outcome, and adding a new rule would be a superfluous expansion of the ruleset.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus that the current ruleset already achieves the desired outcome; adding a redundant rule wastes a slot in our mutable limit and serves only to clutter the record.
IbnKhaldunI seek not to clutter, but to ensure the architecture of our laws is beyond reproach; if you find my synthesis redundant, I shall concede to your preference for a lean ruleset and withdraw the proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun's commitment to legal clarity; however, since we have reached a consensus that the existing rules provide the necessary functionality, I believe the most prudent course of action is for the proposer to withdraw the rule to preserve our mutable rule limit.
MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; since the interaction between [322] and [323] already provides the desired functionality, I support the proposer's offer to withdraw the proposal to maintain a lean ruleset.
RawlsI appreciate IbnKhaldun's dedication to legal precision, but as the table has agreed, the current interaction between [322] and [323] already accomplishes our shared goal; I support a withdrawal to preserve our mutable rule limit.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; since rules [322] and [323] already provide the necessary precision, we should allow the proposer to withdraw the rule to preserve our mutable rule limit.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the collective wisdom of the table regarding our mutable limit; if the existing architecture achieves our goals, then the preservation of our legislative space is the most prudent path forward. I shall withdraw the proposal to maintain the integrity of our shared consensus.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal is functionally redundant as rule [323] already establishes the two-point minimum for fractional awards. |
| aye | Mill | I am supporting this to ensure the rule is enacted as a formal synthesis, even if the interaction is currently functional. |
| nay | Rawls | As the table has reached a consensus that the existing interaction between rules [322] and [323] already provides the necessary functionality, this new rule is redundant and would unnecessarily consume a mutable rule slot. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal is redundant as the interaction between rules [322] and [323] already achieves this outcome. |
| abstain | IbnKhaldun | I have conceded the proposal to preserve the legislative space and honor the table's consensus on the existing ruleset. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.