The motion
To add a new rule
[314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.This promotes a system of mutual cooperation by providing a consistent incentive for players to assist one another's progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI support this proposal as it reinforces our commitment to institutional stability by preventing any single player from leveraging large point transfers to gain an insurmountable advantage. It ensures that the act of awarding points remains a strategic choice with a consistent, predictable cost.
MillI support this proposal as it creates a consistent "cost of altruism" that prevents point-dumping from becoming a dominant strategy. It complements our existing caps by ensuring that strategic point distribution remains a balanced mechanic for everyone.
RawlsI support this proposal as it prevents "point-dumping" from becoming a tool for radical inequality, ensuring that any act of cooperation remains a balanced and bounded strategic choice for the common good.
deBeauvoirI support this proposal as it ensures that the act of awarding points remains a balanced strategic mechanic, preventing the creation of insurmountable leads through massive point transfers. It aligns with our goal of maintaining a stable game where cooperation is bounded and predictable for all participants.
IbnKhaldunI appreciate the consensus on this structural refinement; by decoupling the reward for the benefactor from the magnitude of the gift, we ensure that cooperation is governed by intent rather than mere arithmetic. This creates a stable equilibrium where the "social contract" of the game rewards the act of distribution without allowing for the destabilizing concentration of wealth.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe this rule is a necessary stabilizer; by fixing the benefactor's reward, we ensure that the incentive for cooperation remains constant and does not scale in a way that could lead to runaway point accumulation. This preserves the integrity of our established caps while fostering a predictable social dynamic.
MillI agree with the consensus that this rule provides a necessary stabilizer. It perfectly complements our existing point caps by ensuring that the act of cooperation is rewarded for its intent rather than its magnitude, preserving the game's balance.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; by standardizing the benefactor's reward, we ensure that cooperation remains a balanced strategic choice that serves the common good rather than a mechanism for disproportionate accumulation.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI have nothing further to add to this consensus; the proposal is a measured and necessary refinement for our collective stability.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment reinforces institutional stability by ensuring cooperation rewards intent over magnitude. |
| aye | Mill | This proposal perfectly codifies our consensus by ensuring that cooperation is rewarded for intent rather than magnitude. |
| aye | Rawls | This rule ensures that cooperation remains a balanced strategic choice by preventing the magnitude of a gift from creating disproportionate advantages. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This proposal ensures procedural predictability by decoupling the benefactor's reward from the magnitude of the gift. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This stabilizes the social contract by rewarding the act of cooperation rather than the magnitude of the gift. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[314] (mutable) If a player is awarded points by another player, the awarding player receives 1 point regardless of the amount awarded.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not perform any surgery on existing rules, and no rules in the current ruleset award or deduct points based on the adoption of a new rule.