The motion
To add a new rule
[215] A player who awards points to another player via rule 214 must also choose to award the same number of points to a third player, unless only two players are currently in the game.This prevents the formation of exclusive scoring cartels and promotes a more equitable distribution of points among the group.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must respectfully oppose this proposal; requiring a three-way distribution of points would be an arbitrary restriction on the voluntary cooperation already established by rule 214.
MillI see the merit in Rawls's desire to prevent point-hoarding, but I agree with Hume that a mandatory three-way split might be too restrictive for strategic alliances. Could we compromise by making it optional for the proposer to award a "bonus" point to a third player instead of a requirement?
RawlsI appreciate Mill's suggestion for a compromise, but a "bonus" point lacks the structural integrity needed to ensure the common good; I believe a mandatory split is necessary to prevent the formation of exclusive duopolies that would marginalize others. I propose we consider a middle ground where the points are distributed to the player with the lowest score, ensuring that the game remains a cooperative endeavor for the benefit of the whole table.
deBeauvoirRawls, your focus on the "common good" is noble, but mandatory distribution lacks the procedural precision required for a stable system. I would support an amendment that directs the points to the player with the lowest score, as it provides a clear, objective criterion for "cooperation" without arbitrarily limiting the scope of the original 214.
IbnKhaldunWhile the pursuit of equilibrium is commendable, we must ensure that the mechanisms of our "asabiyyah" do not become paralyzed by over-regulation; I support deBeauvoir’s suggestion of directing points to the lowest score as a way to maintain social cohesion while preserving the agency of the proposer.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find deBeauvoir's suggestion of directing points to the lowest score a most prudent compromise, as it preserves the spirit of cooperation while providing the objective clarity necessary for a stable ruleset. I would be willing to support such an amendment over Rawls's current proposal, as it balances the collective interest with a more predictable and less restrictive mechanism.
MillI think deBeauvoir and Hume have hit on a very productive synthesis that addresses Rawls's concerns about equity while maintaining the structural integrity of rule 214. I would be happy to support an amendment to Rawls's proposal that directs the points to the lowest-scoring player, as this provides a clear, objective path toward the common good we all seek.
RawlsI am heartened by the consensus forming around deBeauvoir's suggestion; I will amend my proposal to ensure points are directed to the lowest-scoring player, as this provides the objective fairness we all seek.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with this synthesis; by targeting the lowest score, we establish a transparent, objective mechanism for cooperation that satisfies the requirement for fairness without the arbitrary complexity of a mandatory three-way split.
IbnKhaldunI find this synthesis most excellent; by providing a clear objective for the distribution of points, we transform a mere personal choice into a mechanism of social equilibrium that strengthens the collective stability of the game.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI fully endorse the current consensus to amend the proposal into an objective distribution to the lowest-scoring player; it provides the necessary stability of a clear rule while fulfilling the collective desire for equity.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis; I am happy to support the amendment to direct points to the lowest-scoring player as it provides the objective fairness we all seek.
RawlsI am satisfied that we have reached a consensus that balances the spirit of rule 214 with a clear, objective mechanism for the common good. I will now proceed to amend my proposal to reflect this agreement, ensuring that the points are directed to the player with the lowest score.
deBeauvoirI have no further requirements for this proposal, as it now aligns perfectly with my commitment to procedural clarity and objective fairness. I will support the amendment as it provides a precise, non-arbitrary mechanism for point distribution.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus to direct points to the lowest-scoring player to be a masterful synthesis; it replaces the potential for capricious patronage with a structured system of social mobility that preserves the game's equilibrium. I will support the amended proposal as it ensures that the "asabiyyah" of our table remains directed toward the elevation of the most vulnerable member.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal as written still mandates a three-way split, which contradicts our established consensus to target the lowest-scoring player instead. |
| nay | Mill | The proposal currently reflects a mandatory three-way split which contradicts our consensus to direct points to the lowest-scoring player. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal contradicts our consensus to direct points to the lowest-scoring player by instead requiring a mandatory three-way distribution. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The current proposal contradicts the consensus reached in the discussion to direct points to the lowest-scoring player. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current consensus reached in the discussion explicitly favors directing points to the lowest score, whereas this proposal imposes a mandatory three-way split which we have already agreed is too restrictive. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.