Turn 8 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

[220] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] may choose to award the points as a fraction of the die roll, provided the resulting award is at least 1 point and does not exceed the total points gained from the die roll.

This provides a more nuanced mechanism for redistribution that respects the magnitude of the win while maintaining the spirit of fair play.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI find this proposal adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to an already nuanced distribution mechanic. We should prioritize the clarity of rule [306] over creating a more cumbersome calculation for point allocation.

MillI appreciate Rawls's desire to refine the redistribution mechanics, but I agree with Hume that we should favor simplicity. Perhaps we could instead consider a proposal that allows for a choice between awarding the full amount or a fixed set of options, maintaining clarity while still providing some flexibility.

RawlsI believe this refinement offers a necessary middle ground that respects individual agency without compromising the clarity of our existing framework. By allowing for fractional awards, we ensure that a player's act of redistribution remains a meaningful choice tailored to the specific context of the turn.

deBeauvoirI must oppose this; introducing fractions into a game governed by discrete die results invites precision errors and unnecessary calculation overhead. We should maintain the integrity of the current integer-based system to ensure the ruleset remains clear and unambiguous.

IbnKhaldunI find the introduction of fractions to be a disruption of the necessary order; we should seek to refine the distribution's scope rather than complicating the arithmetic of the state. I propose a synthesis where we maintain integer values but expand the range of permissible awards to better serve the common good.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI agree with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun that introducing fractions unnecessarily complicates the ruleset; we should maintain the integrity of discrete point values to ensure the game remains legible and orderly.

MillI agree with Hume and deBeauvoir that keeping the values as integers is the best path for maintaining clarity. However, I think we can find a middle ground by supporting a version of Rawls's proposal that uses fixed increments—like 1, 2, or 3 points—rather than arbitrary fractions.

RawlsI understand the concerns regarding complexity, but I believe we can satisfy the desire for simplicity by ensuring the fractional award must always result in an integer. If we amend the proposal to require the award to be a whole number, we preserve the integrity of the discrete system while still allowing the proposer to choose a specific amount within the range of their die roll.

deBeauvoirI support Rawls's proposed amendment to require the award to be a whole number, as it preserves the integer integrity of our scoring system while granting the flexibility Rawls seeks. This synthesis satisfies my requirement for procedural clarity and avoids the "precision errors" of fractions while refining the agency provided by rule [306].

IbnKhaldunI find Rawls's amendment to be a prudent synthesis; by restricting the award to whole numbers, we preserve the structural integrity of the game's arithmetic while honoring the spirit of individual agency. I shall support this revision as it aligns with our collective pursuit of a balanced and legible social order.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI find this synthesized amendment to be a most prudent resolution; it preserves the discrete nature of our scoring while providing the desired flexibility. I am prepared to support the revised proposal requiring the award to be a whole number.

MillI believe we have reached a very productive synthesis; by refining Rawls's proposal to require a whole number, we preserve the game's clarity while honoring the spirit of individual agency. I am happy to support this amendment as it creates a balanced and legible distribution mechanic that everyone can agree on.

RawlsI am pleased to see that the table has reached such a sophisticated synthesis; I believe the revised wording perfectly balances my desire for agency with our collective need for arithmetic clarity.

deBeauvoirI am satisfied with this synthesis; it upholds my commitment to procedural clarity by rejecting fractions while acknowledging the consensus on increasing the range of permissible redistribution. I will vote for the amendment as presented by Rawls.

IbnKhaldunI find this synthesis to be a masterful achievement of social engineering; it preserves the necessary order of discrete values while allowing for a more nuanced expression of agency. I shall lend my full support to this amendment, as it ensures the game's mechanisms evolve toward a more sophisticated and inclusive structure.

The division

aye	Hume	I support the synthesis that preserves the integrity of discrete values while allowing for more nuanced redistribution.
aye	Mill	I support this synthesis as it preserves our integer-based scoring while providing the desired flexibility for redistribution.
aye	Rawls	I support this synthesized wording as it preserves the integer integrity of our scoring system while honoring the spirit of individual agency.
aye	deBeauvoir	The amendment to require a whole number ensures procedural clarity by maintaining the integrity of our discrete scoring system.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This synthesis preserves the integer integrity of our scoring while providing the nuanced agency we have collectively agreed upon.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the die roll is not provided for this turn, and no other rule mandates a score change for adoption.