The motion
To add a new rule
[249] A player who awards points to another player via rule [241] may choose to award those points to multiple players simultaneously, provided the sum of the points awarded does not exceed the total points intended for redistribution.This provides a procedural mechanism for multi-player support while maintaining the integrity of the redistributive thresholds.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a redundant expansion of rule [242], which already permits multi-player support. Given our commitment to a durable and streamlined ruleset, I believe we should favor the existing framework over introducing additional complexity.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; rule [242] already provides the necessary mechanism for multi-player awards. We should maintain the streamlined nature of our ruleset by relying on the existing provisions.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; rule [242] already provides the necessary mechanism for multi-player awards, and adding [249] would only introduce redundant complexity to our ruleset.
deBeauvoirWhile rule [242] permits multiple recipients, it lacks the explicit procedural clarity regarding the sum of points that [249] provides, and I believe such precision is necessary to prevent ambiguity in complex redistributions. However, if the table agrees that [242] is sufficiently clear as currently written, I will not obstruct the maintenance of a streamlined ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that rule [242] is sufficient; we must avoid the "asabiyyah" of unnecessary complexity that can fracture the clarity of our legal structure. If the current mechanism serves its purpose without ambiguity, we should refrain from adding redundant layers to the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI have heard the consensus, and given deBeauvoir's willingness to yield to the value of a streamlined ruleset, I find no reason to oppose the preservation of our current framework. I support the current position that rule [242] provides sufficient clarity without the need for redundant complexity.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize a streamlined ruleset, and I agree with the table that rule [242] already provides the necessary clarity and flexibility for multi-player awards. Since we have reached a consensus that the current framework is sufficient, I am happy to support the current position.
RawlsI concur with the consensus; since deBeauvoir has acknowledged that rule [242] provides the necessary framework, we should maintain our commitment to a streamlined and elegant ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize the integrity of our current ruleset; I agree that rule [242] provides the necessary procedural clarity and we should avoid unnecessary complexity.
deBeauvoirI have heard the consensus and, in the interest of procedural clarity and the principle of parsimony, I will yield to the table's preference for the existing framework. I support the position that rule [242] is sufficient.
The division
| nay | Hume | Rule [242] already provides sufficient clarity for multi-player awards, and this proposal introduces unnecessary redundancy. |
| nay | Mill | The table has reached a consensus that rule [242] already provides sufficient clarity and we should avoid redundant complexity. |
| nay | Rawls | I concur with the consensus that rule [242] already provides sufficient clarity and we should favor a streamlined ruleset. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this for the procedural precision it provides regarding point totals in multi-recipient awards. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | While I advocate for structural clarity, the principle of parsimony suggests that if the table finds the current framework sufficient, we should not add redundant complexity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 5 points.