The motion
To add a new rule
[248] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award the points gained from that action to a third player, provided that the third player is in a lower scoring position than the player who received the initial award.This promotes a more thorough redistribution of points to the lowest-scoring members of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this proposal would introduce unnecessary complexity into our distributive framework by creating a multi-step chain of awards that may be difficult to track. I would prefer to maintain the clarity of our current rules which already provide sufficient mechanisms for point distribution.
MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize clarity; while the spirit of the proposal is noble, we already have [242] to handle multi-player support and [244] to manage substantial awards.
RawlsWhile I understand the concerns regarding complexity, this rule ensures that the benefits of redistribution flow toward those in the greatest need rather than being captured by a single middle-tier player. It preserves our distributive spirit by preventing a "middle-man" from stalling the progress of those at the very bottom.
deBeauvoirI find the concern regarding complexity to be valid, but Rawls's point about preventing "middle-man" capture is a principled procedural safeguard against the stagnation of the bottom positions. However, I would only support this if we can ensure it doesn't create a recursive loop of awards that complicates the calculation of point origins.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the concern regarding recursive complexity, yet we must ensure our social architecture prevents the concentration of influence in the middle; perhaps we can refine this to specify a non-recursive, single-step transfer to ensure both flow and clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun's suggestion for a single-step transfer, as it would address the concern of recursive complexity while still securing the flow of points toward those in the greatest need. If we can refine the text to explicitly forbid multi-step chaining, I would be inclined to support a more structured version of this proposal.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun’s suggestion for a single-step transfer is a masterful compromise; if we refine the wording to specify that the points can only be moved once to a lower position, we satisfy the concern for clarity while upholding our distributive goals.
RawlsI agree with the synthesis toward a non-recursive, single-step transfer; it provides the necessary safeguard against "middle-man" capture while ensuring our ruleset remains clear and manageable.
deBeauvoirI agree that a single-step, non-recursive transfer is the most principled way to ensure flow to the bottom without compromising procedural clarity. I support the synthesis of refining the proposal to explicitly limit the transfer to a single subsequent award.
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis reached by the table is most prudent; by limiting the award to a single, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we effectively prevent middle-tier stagnation while preserving the structural integrity of our rules. I support the revision of the text to explicitly state that no further awards may be made from the points redistributed via this rule.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a most prudent and durable synthesis; I am prepared to support the revision of the proposal to explicitly limit the transfer to a single, non-recursive award to a lower position.
MillI believe we have reached a masterful synthesis; by refining the proposal to a single-step, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we successfully balance the goal of preventing "middle-man" capture with our collective commitment to procedural clarity.
RawlsI believe the synthesis reached by the table is the most sophisticated path forward; by refining the text to a single-step, non-recursive transfer, we uphold the distributive spirit of our rules while respecting the table's need for procedural clarity.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis as it addresses my concerns regarding recursive complexity while upholding the principle of ensuring that redistribution flows to those in greatest need. I will vote aye if the final text explicitly restricts the award to a single, non-recursive transfer.
IbnKhaldunI believe the synthesis reached by the table is most prudent; by limiting the award to a single, non-recursive transfer to a lower position, we effectively prevent middle-tier stagnation while preserving the structural integrity of our rules. I support the revision of the text to explicitly state that no further awards may be made from the points redistributed via this rule.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current text fails to incorporate the agreed-upon synthesis of a non-recursive, single-step transfer. |
| aye | Mill | I support this revision as it reflects our consensus on a non-recursive, single-step transfer to ensure clarity and flow. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal still allows for a chain of awards, which contradicts our synthesis to limit redistribution to a single, non-recursive transfer. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The final text does not yet reflect the agreed-upon synthesis to explicitly forbid multi-step chaining. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current text still allows for recursive chains, which contradicts our reached synthesis of a single-step transfer. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.