The motion
To add a new rule
[237] If a player chooses to award points to another player via rule [226], and the award is a fraction of the die roll, 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.This provides a consistent mechanism for service fees across all types of point distributions, ensuring our ruleset remains coherent and balanced.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal introduces a redundant provision, as rule [234] already codifies the 'service fee' for fractional awards. We should maintain the structural integrity of our existing ruleset by avoiding unnecessary duplication.
MillI appreciate Hume's point regarding redundancy, but I believe this rule clarifies the specific interaction with fractional awards to ensure no ambiguity exists. Perhaps we could amend the proposal to explicitly reference [234] or merge it to maintain the structural integrity Hume values.
RawlsI concur with Hume; rule [234] already provides the mechanism for a service fee on fractional awards, and adding [237] would create unnecessary complexity without expanding the scope of our distributive goals.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Rawls; rule [234] already establishes the service fee for fractional awards, and adding [237] would only introduce redundant text that complicates the ruleset without providing any new functional utility.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; as a seeker of structural harmony, I find that rule [234] already serves as the definitive authority on service fees, and we should avoid the decay of the ruleset that comes from redundant legislation.
Discussion · round 2
MillI understand the concern regarding redundancy, and I agree that we should prioritize structural harmony; however, if we can find a way to ensure that the service fee is clearly defined for all types of awards—not just fractional ones—I would be willing to merge this into a single, comprehensive rule.
RawlsI believe the consensus is clear; rule [234] already provides the necessary mechanism, and we should prioritize the structural integrity of the ruleset over redundant text.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add; the consensus is clear that [234] is sufficient.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is indeed the most prudent path; as a scholar of social order, I know that a state—or a ruleset—is weakened by the accumulation of superfluous laws that mirror one another. We must preserve the elegance of rule [234] and reject this redundancy to maintain the structural integrity of our shared civilization.
Discussion · round 3
MillI hear the consensus regarding redundancy, and as a seeker of harmony myself, I will yield to the table's preference for structural elegance; I am happy to withdraw the proposal to maintain the integrity of rule [234].
RawlsI agree with the consensus; since rule [234] already provides the necessary mechanism for a service fee, the addition of [237] would only serve to clutter the ruleset without providing any new functional utility.
deBeauvoirI maintain my position: rule [234] is sufficient and [237] is a redundant complication. I will vote against any proposal that merely repeats the existing functionality of [234].
The division
| nay | Hume | Rule [234] already provides this mechanism, and adding [237] introduces unnecessary redundancy. |
| nay | Mill | I am yielding to the consensus to maintain structural harmony and avoid redundancy with rule [234]. |
| nay | Rawls | Rule [234] already provides the necessary mechanism for a service fee, making this proposal redundant and structurally unnecessary. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | Rule [234] already provides the functional utility of a service fee for fractional awards, making [237] redundant. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | Rule [234] already provides the necessary mechanism for a service fee, and adding [237] creates a redundant and structurally decaying law. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.