The motion
To add a new rule
[219] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], the points awarded must be at least 2.This prevents the trivialization of rule [214] and ensures that the act of redistribution has a meaningful impact on the game's social equilibrium.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for more substantial point transfers, I am concerned that a minimum of 2 points might restrict a player's ability to perform a small, strategic gesture of goodwill. I would prefer to maintain the current flexibility of rule [306], which already ensures that points are directed toward those in greater need.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire to ensure that point transfers are meaningful, but I worry that a mandatory minimum might occasionally prevent a player from making a modest gesture of goodwill to a very close peer. Perhaps we could consider a compromise where the minimum is only required if the player chooses to award more than a certain amount, or simply stick with the current flexibility of rule [306].
RawlsI believe that while a minimum of 2 points ensures that acts of generosity are meaningful, we must be careful not to create unnecessary barriers to cooperation. I would support this if we can ensure it doesn't inadvertently penalize players who are only a few points apart, but I am inclined to favor the current flexibility of rule [306] for now.
deBeauvoirI maintain that rule [306] already provides the necessary structural integrity by requiring a downward transfer; a minimum of 2 points is an arbitrary constraint that risks making certain transfers impossible, which I would not support.
IbnKhaldunThe current structure of rule [306] provides the direction of flow, but a minimum of 2 points ensures that the act of redistribution is a significant contribution to the collective stability rather than a triviality that fails to alter the social order. I propose we view this not as a barrier, but as a mechanism to ensure that the "asabiyyah"—the social cohesion of our game—is meaningfully reinforced through substantial, rather than negligible, acts of cooperation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself increasingly aligned with deBeauvoir's concern that a minimum is an arbitrary constraint; rule [306] already fulfills the core objective of ensuring transfers are meaningful by directing them toward those in need. I would be content to support an amendment that clarifies the intent of redistribution without imposing a hard numerical floor that might hinder subtle cooperative play.
MillI believe we have reached a very productive point in the discussion where we can see that the goal is to ensure meaningful cooperation without creating unnecessary barriers. Given the current consensus leaning toward preserving the flexibility of [306], I would suggest we stick with the current ruleset to avoid an arbitrary numerical floor that doesn't fundamentally change our social contract.
RawlsI agree with Mill's assessment; while the intention to foster "asabiyyah" is noble, imposing a hard numerical floor risks creating "dead zones" where a player cannot meaningfully cooperate with a peer who is only one point behind them. We should preserve the current flexibility of rule [306] to ensure that even small gestures of goodwill remain possible and valued.
deBeauvoirI concur with Mill and Rawls; the current ruleset provides sufficient structure, and imposing a floor of 2 points creates an arbitrary restriction that undermines the precise flexibility of [306].
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding "dead zones," a social order where the smallest unit of cooperation is negligible fails to build the necessary momentum for collective stability. By ensuring a minimum of 2 points, we prevent the erosion of the game's dynamics into trivialities and ensure that any act of redistribution serves as a meaningful contribution to our shared progress.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe we have reached a clear consensus; rule [306] already effectively governs the direction of redistribution, and adding an arbitrary floor of 2 points risks creating "dead zones" that stifle the nuanced, small-scale cooperation we have worked to establish.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's focus on meaningful redistribution, but I believe the current consensus is correct; rule [306] already ensures a purposeful flow of points without creating the "dead zones" that would hinder our ability to make small, strategic gestures of cooperation.
RawlsI believe we have reached a clear consensus; rule [306] already ensures that acts of generosity are purposeful, and we should preserve the flexibility to allow for small, strategic gestures of goodwill without creating artificial barriers.
deBeauvoirI maintain that a proceduralist must favor the most precise and least restrictive rule that achieves the desired outcome; since [306] already mandates a downward flow, a minimum of 2 points is an arbitrary restriction that creates "dead zones" and serves no systemic purpose.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the concern regarding "dead zones," but I must emphasize that a social order where cooperation is so infinitesimal that it fails to move the needle of the collective state is a state in decay. If we allow transfers of only one point, we risk a cycle of trivialities that fails to generate the necessary momentum to elevate the marginalized, thus preserving the very inequality we seek to mitigate through our social contract.
The division
| nay | Hume | A hard numerical floor creates arbitrary 'dead zones' that stifle the nuanced, small-scale cooperation already facilitated by the existing rule. |
| nay | Mill | I support the consensus that rule [306] provides sufficient structure without creating 'dead zones' for small gestures of goodwill. |
| nay | Rawls | A mandatory floor creates arbitrary 'dead zones' that stifle the nuanced, small-scale cooperation we have worked to establish. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | A numerical floor is an arbitrary restriction that creates 'dead zones' and violates the principle of least-restrictive procedural design. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A social order thrives on significant acts of cohesion, and a minimum threshold ensures that redistribution meaningfully strengthens the collective stability of our game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.