The motion
To add a new rule
[216] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], the proposer of the rule change that granted the points must also receive a number of points equal to the number awarded, determined by a roll of a six-sided die.This ensures that the exercise of rule [214] remains a collaborative act of distribution rather than a mechanism for a single player to altruistically dump points to avoid the consequences of their own move.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of fostering shared success, I worry that rule [216] creates a mechanical redundancy that complicates the elegant simplicity of [214]. I would prefer we maintain the current flexibility of voluntary point distribution without layering on additional mandatory die rolls.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's aim to ensure the proposer remains involved in the reward, but I agree with Hume that we should avoid unnecessary complexity. Could we instead consider a compromise where the proposer simply chooses whether to keep the points or award them, rather than triggering an additional die roll?
RawlsI agree with Mill's preference for simplicity; while I value the idea of shared success, [216] introduces a secondary roll that feels arbitrary rather than cooperative. I would support a rule that ensures the proposer retains some agency over the outcome without adding more mechanical complexity.
deBeauvoirI maintain that [216] is necessary to prevent the game from becoming a mere altruistic exercise that drains the proposer's incentive to enact meaningful changes. If we want to ensure the proposer remains a stakeholder in the evolution of the ruleset, they must retain a stake in the points generated by their success.
IbnKhaldunI observe that deBeauvoir seeks to protect the proposer's incentive, a noble pursuit in social dynamics, yet I find both [216] and the current [214] to be somewhat atomistic. If we seek a truly stable and prosperous civilization of rules, we should consider a mechanism that rewards the collective advancement of the state rather than merely the individual's hoard.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the current proposal's insistence on a second die roll to be a move toward unnecessary complexity; we could instead consider a mechanism that ensures the proposer retains a meaningful portion of the points to maintain their incentive without adding new mechanics.
MillI think deBeauvoir’s concern about proposer incentive is valid, but I agree with Hume and Rawls that a second die roll adds friction. Perhaps we could compromise by amending [216] so the proposer receives a fixed, smaller amount of points—like 1—whenever they award points, ensuring they remain a stakeholder without the mechanical overhead.
RawlsI believe Mill's compromise of a fixed point award is the most stable path forward; it addresses deBeauvoir's concern regarding proposer incentives while preserving the simplicity we all value. I would be willing to support this amendment to [216] to ensure the proposer remains a stakeholder without the arbitrary nature of a second die roll.
deBeauvoirI am prepared to accept Mill's compromise of a fixed 1-point award, as it preserves my principle of proposer stakeholder status while satisfying the collective desire for procedural simplicity.
IbnKhaldunI support Mill's compromise; a fixed 1-point stipend for the proposer ensures a vested interest in the rule's utility without the chaotic unpredictability of a second die roll. It provides the necessary incentive for the architect of the law while maintaining the structural integrity of our evolving social contract.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am pleased to see a consensus forming around Mill's compromise; a fixed 1-point award provides a clear, durable incentive for the proposer without the unnecessary mechanical friction of a secondary die roll. I will support the amendment of the proposal to reflect this specific 1-point stipend.
MillI am pleased that we have reached this consensus; the 1-point stipend perfectly balances deBeauvoir's need for proposer incentive with our collective preference for simplicity. I move that we adopt the amended text for rule [216].
RawlsI am pleased to see the table move toward this synthesis; a fixed stipend ensures the proposer remains a stakeholder in the ruleset's evolution while maintaining the procedural clarity we have all agreed is paramount. I support Mill's motion to adopt this amendment.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill's synthesis; a fixed stipend provides a predictable and stable incentive for the architect of the law, ensuring that the evolution of our ruleset serves the common good without inviting the volatility of chance.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support the consensus to amend the proposal to a fixed 1-point stipend to preserve simplicity and proposer incentive. |
| aye | Mill | I support the consensus to amend this proposal to a fixed 1-point stipend to ensure proposer incentive without unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | Rawls | I support the consensus to amend this proposal to a fixed 1-point stipend to ensure simplicity and stability. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | I am voting nay because I have already agreed to the compromise of a fixed 1-point stipend and the current text remains mechanically over-complex. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | I support the consensus to amend this to a fixed 1-point stipend to ensure stability over the volatility of a second die roll. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.