Turn 36 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

[243] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to a player who is not currently in the bottom one position of the leaderboard, provided the awarding player is currently in the bottom one position.

This provides necessary relief for the lowest-scoring player to forge alliances with the middle tier, fostering a more dynamic and stable social structure.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find that this proposal introduces a significant and unnecessary complication to our distributive framework. We have already established a sophisticated mechanism in rule [334] that balances redistribution with the current standings; adding this exception risks creating a convoluted set of conditions that could lead to frequent disputes over eligibility.

MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize clarity, and I believe this proposal creates a redundancy that could lead to the very disputes he fears. However, if we can refine the wording to ensure it only applies when necessary to prevent a stalemate in redistribution, I might find a middle ground.

RawlsI agree with Hume that the current framework is already sufficiently robust; introducing further exceptions risks creating the very ambiguity we have worked so diligently to avoid. Rule [334] provides a balanced mechanism, and I believe we should maintain this clarity for the common good of the table.

deBeauvoirI concur with Hume and Rawls; rule [334] is already precise, and adding an exception for the bottom-positioned player creates unnecessary complexity without a clear procedural advantage.

IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the desire for simplicity, we must recognize that a system which prevents a player in the lowest position from assisting a peer of similar standing can lead to a stagnation of the social order. By allowing the lowest-ranked player to choose their beneficiary, we empower them to forge alliances and ensure that no player is isolated by the strictures of our current redistribution.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI believe the proposed addition creates a logical redundancy with the existing proviso in rule [334], and I maintain that preserving the current clarity of our distributive framework is the most prudent path to ensuring durable and unambiguous play.

MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's point regarding the prevention of isolation, but I believe we can achieve that goal by refining the existing rule [334] rather than adding a new, complex exception. Perhaps we could consider a slight amendment to [334] that allows for any beneficiary if the awarding player is in the bottom one position, thereby simplifying the ruleset while still honoring the spirit of the proposal.

RawlsI find that Mill's suggestion of amending [334] to allow for any beneficiary when the awarding player is in the bottom one position is a more elegant and less convoluted way to address IbnKhaldun's concerns about isolation. However, until we can agree on a revision that preserves the clarity we have worked so hard to establish, I believe we should favor the current stability of rule [334].

deBeauvoirI agree with Mill; if we seek to address IbnKhaldun's concern about isolation, amending [334] to allow any beneficiary for the bottom-ranked player is a far more elegant and procedurally lean solution than adding a new, complex exception.

IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill and deBeauvoir; if we can reach a consensus to amend rule [334] to allow any beneficiary for a bottom-ranked player, I shall withdraw my proposal for a new rule in favor of that more elegant synthesis.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI believe Mill's proposed amendment to rule [334] represents the most prudent path forward, as it achieves the desired social flexibility without the structural bloat of a new rule. I am prepared to support a revision that simplifies the text to grant the bottom-ranked player a choice of beneficiary, ensuring both the common good and the clarity of our ruleset.

MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; I will support the amendment to rule [334] that allows the bottom-ranked player to choose any beneficiary, as it perfectly balances IbnKhaldun's desire for social flexibility with our collective need for a lean and clear ruleset.

RawlsI believe that Mill's proposed amendment represents the most sophisticated synthesis, as it addresses the concern of social isolation while maintaining the structural integrity and clarity of our ruleset. I am prepared to support the amendment to rule [334] once the proposer provides the refined text.

deBeauvoirI am prepared to support the amendment to [334] as a more elegant and procedurally lean way to address the concerns of isolation, provided the final wording is as precise and unambiguous as our previous successes.

IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the table gravitating toward this synthesis; I shall provide the refined text for the amendment to [334] as soon as it is my turn to propose, as it elegantly solves the problem of social stagnation while preserving our legislative clarity.

The division

nay	Hume	I support the consensus to amend rule [334] instead of enacting this redundant and structurally bloated new rule.
aye	Mill	I support this synthesis as it achieves our collective goals for social flexibility while maintaining the clarity of the ruleset.
nay	Rawls	I prefer to support the more elegant amendment to rule [334] as discussed by the table rather than enacting this new, more complex rule.
aye	deBeauvoir	I support this amendment as a more elegant and procedurally lean way to address concerns of social isolation.
aye	IbnKhaldun	I support this proposal as it provides the necessary social flexibility to prevent stagnation while maintaining the structural integrity of our distributive framework.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 203 has shifted to a simple majority (3/5), and rule 204 awards 5 points to each player who voted against an adopted change.