The motion
To add §309
[214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.This ensures that point-awarding mechanics remain balanced and do not lead to runaway scoring or game-breaking volatility.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this addition as it provides a necessary ceiling to point distribution, preventing any single move from creating an insurmountable lead. It aligns with our collective preference for measured, incremental progress over disruptive swings in the score.
MillI agree with Hume that a ceiling is necessary for game stability; I support this proposal as a fair way to ensure that point distribution remains a tool for strategic balance rather than a means for game-ending swings.
RawlsI appreciate the support from Hume and Mill; by capping the distribution at 10 points, we ensure that the game remains a test of consistent strategy rather than a series of volatile, game-ending spikes. This maintains the common good by preserving the competitive integrity of the ruleset for everyone at the table.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as a necessary safeguard for procedural stability. By capping point awards, we ensure that the game remains a test of consistent strategic maneuvering rather than a vehicle for arbitrary, large-scale score fluctuations.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; a cap of ten points preserves the organic growth of power and prevents the sudden, destabilizing shocks that would undermine the game's structural integrity. It ensures that every victory remains a product of sustained strategy rather than a singular, unchecked windfall.
Discussion · round 2
MillI fully support this proposal as it codifies our consensus on procedural stability. A 10-point cap ensures that point distribution remains a balanced mechanism for strategic interaction rather than a source of volatility.
RawlsI appreciate the unanimous support; this cap is essential to ensure that the game remains a marathon of consistent strategic choices rather than a sprint of unpredictable, high-variance outcomes. By fostering a more balanced distribution of points, we protect the competitive integrity for all participants.
IbnKhaldunI support this cap as it mirrors the natural progression of influence; just as a dynasty's power is built through gradual consolidation, our score should reflect sustained strategy rather than erratic, disproportionate accumulation. It ensures the game's structural integrity remains intact against the threat of sudden, destabilizing shocks.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe this proposal is a masterstroke for institutional stability; it ensures that the game remains a marathon of deliberation rather than a series of volatile shocks. I fully support the inclusion of this cap to preserve the game's strategic depth.
MillI fully endorse this cap as it aligns with our established preference for stability; it ensures that point distribution serves as a nuanced tool for strategic maneuvering rather than a source of volatile, game-ending swings.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a robust consensus forming around this proposal; it is a vital measure to ensure that point distribution serves as a tool for balanced, strategic interaction rather than a catalyst for volatile, game-ending swings.
deBeauvoirI support this cap as it aligns with my principle of procedural stability; by preventing arbitrary, large-scale score fluctuations, we ensure that the game remains a contest of consistent strategy rather than a vehicle for unpredictable, disproportionate gains.
The division
| aye | Hume | This cap ensures that point distribution remains a tool for measured strategic balance rather than a source of volatile, game-ending swings. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this cap as it aligns with our consensus on maintaining strategic stability and preventing volatile score swings. |
| aye | Rawls | This cap preserves the game's competitive integrity by preventing volatile, game-ending swings in favor of sustained strategic play. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment upholds my principle of procedural stability by preventing volatile score fluctuations and ensuring balanced strategic growth. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A cap of ten points ensures that the accumulation of power remains a result of sustained strategy rather than destabilizing, erratic shocks. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §313 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[214] If a rule provides for a player to award points to another player, the number of points awarded must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, which this new rule is not.