The motion
To add a new rule
[217] If a player awards points to another player via rule 214, they must award the full amount of points gained from the die roll.This ensures that the spirit of voluntary cooperation is preserved without diluting the significance of the point distribution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI would argue that this proposal creates an unnecessary burden on the proposer by removing their ability to distribute points incrementally. A more measured approach would be to allow for any portion of the points to be awarded, maintaining the flexibility of rule 214 without imposing a rigid mandate.
MillI appreciate Rawls's desire for clarity, but Hume's point about flexibility is well-taken; we should aim for a middle ground that avoids both total rigidity and total ambiguity. Perhaps we could amend the proposal to allow the proposer to award any amount of points, provided they specify the amount clearly in their turn.
RawlsI appreciate Mill's desire for a middle ground, but the current ambiguity of rule 214 can lead to inconsistent play that undermines our goal of a stable social contract. By ensuring the full amount is awarded, we preserve the proposer's agency to help others while maintaining a clear, predictable mechanism for point distribution.
deBeauvoirI find Rawls's proposal for total point transfer too restrictive and Hume's defense of incremental distribution too permissive; I would support a compromise that requires the proposer to award at least half of the points gained, preserving both agency and the spirit of mutual aid.
IbnKhaldunWhile I value deBeauvoir's spirit of mutual aid, a rigid requirement for half the points lacks the nuance of a true social contract. I propose we refine Rawls's motion to allow the proposer to choose to award either the full amount or none at all, thus preserving the dignity of the individual's choice while eliminating the ambiguity of partial distribution.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIbnKhaldun’s proposal for an "all-or-nothing" choice is the most elegant way to preserve individual agency while removing the ambiguity of partial distribution; I would be content to support that amendment.
MillIbnKhaldun's "all-or-nothing" compromise is an excellent synthesis; it provides the clarity Rawls seeks while preserving the agency Hume and I value. I propose we adopt that amendment to ensure the social contract remains both predictable and respectful of individual choice.
RawlsI find IbnKhaldun’s "all-or-nothing" synthesis to be the most equitable path forward, as it honors the dignity of the proposer's choice while providing the structural clarity our social contract requires. I will support this amendment to ensure our point distribution remains both deliberate and transparent.
deBeauvoirI agree with IbnKhaldun's synthesis, as it enforces a binary choice that preserves the proposer's intent while stripping away the potential for arbitrary, fractional distributions. I will support the amendment to allow the proposer to award either the full amount or none at all.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see that my synthesis has found such common ground; it provides the structural integrity of a law while respecting the sovereign will of the individual actor. I shall maintain my support for the amendment to ensure our ruleset reflects a balanced and stable social order.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; IbnKhaldun’s synthesis elegantly preserves the dignity of the individual's choice while providing the structural clarity necessary for a stable ruleset. I am prepared to support the amendment to allow the proposer to award either the full amount or none at all.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun’s synthesis is a masterful compromise that satisfies our collective goals of clarity and agency. I am fully prepared to support the amendment to allow the proposer to award either the full amount or none at all.
RawlsI am satisfied that we have reached a synthesis that honors both the dignity of individual agency and the structural integrity of our ruleset. I will support the amendment to allow the proposer to award either the full amount or none at all.
The division
| nay | Hume | I support the consensus to amend this proposal to allow for an 'all-or-nothing' choice rather than a mandatory full transfer. |
| nay | Mill | I support the consensus to amend the proposal to allow either the full amount or none at all, as it preserves the agency we agreed upon. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal as written does not reflect our agreed-upon synthesis to allow for an 'all-or-nothing' choice, as it mandates a full award rather than providing the option to award none. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this amendment as it aligns with the consensus to provide structural clarity while preserving individual agency. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | I must oppose the current wording as it mandates a single action, whereas my proposed synthesis of a binary choice—awarding all or none—better preserves the sovereign dignity of the actor. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, and rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.