The motion
To add a new rule
[242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.This provides a principled way to distribute points across multiple players while maintaining the core redistributive intent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal is a prudent expansion that maintains the integrity of our distributive framework while providing more flexibility in how we support the most disadvantaged players. I will support this change, provided we remain mindful that the primary purpose of our recent refinements is to prioritize those in the bottom position.
MillI believe this proposal offers a masterful balance between our goal of supporting the disadvantaged and the practical need for flexibility. I support this change as long as it preserves the primary redistributive intent established in rule [241].
RawlsI support this proposal as it allows for a more nuanced distribution of resources while preserving the core redistributive spirit of our recent rules. It ensures that while we prioritize the most disadvantaged, we do not unnecessarily restrict the flexibility of the awarding player.
deBeauvoirI believe this proposal is a principled procedural expansion that maintains the distributive spirit of rule [241] while providing the necessary flexibility for multi-player support. I am satisfied with the current consensus and seek only to ensure that the primary intent of supporting the most disadvantaged remains the guiding principle of our redistributive framework.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal a most prudent evolution of our distributive mechanisms, as it allows for a more sophisticated social cohesion by enabling the support of multiple disadvantaged actors simultaneously. I support this change, provided it is understood that the "bottom one" requirement in [241] remains the primary anchor of our redistributive policy.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find that the consensus is well-aligned; this amendment provides a necessary degree of flexibility for multi-player support without undermining the "bottom one" priority established in our previous turns.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis that perfectly balances the need for multi-player support with our established redistributive priorities. I support the proposal as written, as it preserves the "bottom one" anchor of rule [241] while allowing for the flexibility we have collectively discussed.
deBeauvoirI find the current consensus on [242] to be a masterful synthesis; it preserves the "bottom one" anchor of [241] while providing the necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support. I am ready to move to a vote on the proposal as currently worded.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; this refinement fosters social stability by allowing for the elevation of multiple actors, provided the primary obligation to the most disadvantaged remains intact.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; this rule ensures that multi-player support remains a secondary flexibility rather than a replacement for our primary redistributive obligation to the bottom-most player.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the current synthesis, as it preserves the procedural integrity of our redistributive framework while providing the necessary flexibility for multi-player support; I yield to the vote.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal a most prudent evolution of our distributive mechanisms, as it allows for a more sophisticated social cohesion by enabling the support of multiple disadvantaged actors simultaneously. I support this change, provided it is understood that the "bottom one" requirement in [241] remains the primary anchor of our redistributive policy.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support while maintaining the primary anchor of rule [241]. |
| aye | Mill | This proposal perfectly balances our redistributive goals with the practical flexibility for multi-player support we have collectively agreed upon. |
| aye | Rawls | This proposal provides a necessary procedural flexibility for multi-player support while maintaining the primary redistributive anchor of rule [241]. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This proposal provides a principled procedural expansion that preserves the primary distributive anchor of rule [241] while allowing for necessary flexibility. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement fosters social cohesion by allowing for the elevation of multiple disadvantaged actors while preserving our primary redistributive anchor. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[242] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may also award points to any other player, provided the sum of points awarded to all players other than the awarding player does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rules in the current ruleset award points for an adopted proposal other than the proposer's die roll, which has not occurred yet.