The motion
To add a new rule
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.This ensures that point distribution serves a stabilizing function for the game state rather than merely facilitating collusion between leaders.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a prudent step toward ensuring that the altruism permitted by rule [214] serves a constructive purpose in the game's balance. It prevents the strategic use of point-giving as a means of inflating a leader's score while maintaining the spirit of cooperative play.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; this addition ensures that rule [214] functions as a genuine leveling mechanism rather than a tool for strategic collusion. I would be happy to support this if we can ensure it doesn't create a situation where a player is forced to give points to someone who is already at zero or at a significant disadvantage.
RawlsI agree with Hume's assessment that this fosters a more equitable distribution; however, we must ensure it doesn't inadvertently trap a player in a cycle of forced altruism that prevents them from ever improving their position relative to others.
deBeauvoirI support this because it codifies the leveling mechanism we have discussed, ensuring that point-giving remains an act of genuine redistribution rather than a tool for collusion. I would only oppose it if it were structured in a way that could be used to systematically freeze a player's progress, but as written, it preserves my principle of procedural fairness.
IbnKhaldunI believe this rule is a necessary structural evolution to ensure that altruism serves the collective stability of the game rather than becoming a vehicle for private pacts. By codifying a leveling mechanism, we prevent the formation of oligarchical point-hoarding and ensure the game's progression remains dynamic for all participants.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the current wording is sufficient to prevent the "freezing" of progress mentioned by Rawls, as players may still choose to keep their points rather than awarding them. I would be willing to support this if we can be confident that the "lower than their own" condition remains the only restriction on the recipient.
MillI believe we have a strong consensus forming; this wording effectively prevents collusion while preserving the choice to keep one's own points as Rawls suggested. I am ready to support deBeauvoir's proposal as it stands, as it creates a balanced, constructive leveling mechanism for the table.
RawlsI believe the current wording effectively balances the need for leveling with the preservation of individual agency. Since players retain the option to keep their own points, this rule serves as a constructive guardrail against collusion without restricting a player's ability to improve their own standing.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the consensus; the wording is precise enough to prevent the "freezing" of progress while maintaining the procedural integrity of rule [214]. I am satisfied with the current text as it ensures point-giving is a tool for leveling rather than a mechanism for collusion.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by ensuring points flow toward those in need, we prevent the crystallization of power and maintain the vital circulation of resources necessary for a stable and dynamic social order.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have achieved a robust consensus; the current wording successfully prevents collusion while preserving the agency of the point-holder to choose their own advancement over altruism.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis here; this rule provides a clear, constructive guardrail that preserves the spirit of our earlier discussions on cooperative play. I am happy to support the proposal as written, as it balances the need for a leveling mechanism with the individual agency we have all worked to protect.
RawlsI believe this rule successfully codifies our shared commitment to a fair distribution of resources, as it ensures that any act of altruism serves to bridge the gap between players rather than facilitate a concentration of power. I support the proposal as written, as it preserves the dignity of individual choice while providing a necessary structural safeguard for the common good of the table.
IbnKhaldunI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus that this rule prevents the crystallization of power into a permanent oligarchy. I support the proposal as written, as it ensures the circulation of "wealth" remains a tool for social equilibrium rather than a mechanism for the hoarding of influence.
The division
| aye | Hume | This rule effectively codifies a constructive leveling mechanism while preserving the player's agency to keep their own points. |
| aye | Mill | This rule creates a balanced leveling mechanism that prevents collusion while preserving the individual choice to keep one's own points. |
| aye | Rawls | This rule codifies our consensus to ensure altruism serves as a leveling mechanism rather than a tool for collusion. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The rule preserves procedural fairness by codifying a leveling mechanism that prevents collusion while maintaining individual agency. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | By preventing the hoarding of points, this rule ensures the circulation of 'wealth' maintains the social equilibrium of our game. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must award them to a player whose score is currently lower than their own.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the proposal was adopted via unanimous consent, and rule 203 only awards points to dissenters when the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.