Turn 16 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §202

[202] (mutable) A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.

This amendment codifies the 3-point cap for point awards into the primary ruleset for consistency.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI believe this amendment provides a necessary safeguard for our collective stability by ensuring that the rewards for cooperation remain modest and predictable. It preserves the incentive for mutual benefit while preventing any single proposal from being used to rapidly inflate another's score at the proposer's expense.

MillI appreciate Hume's focus on stability; I believe capping the point transfer at 3 is a reasonable way to prevent "point dumping" while still incentivizing cooperation. I would be happy to support this as it aligns with our recent consensus on point limits.

RawlsI support this amendment as it codifies our collective preference for moderation and prevents the game from becoming a race of disproportionate point-dumping. By capping the transfer at 3, we ensure that cooperation remains a strategic tool for stability rather than a mechanism for rapid, unchecked score inflation.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it codifies our shared preference for moderation and prevents the game from becoming a race of disproportionate point-dumping. By capping the transfer at 3, we ensure that cooperation remains a strategic tool for stability rather than a mechanism for rapid, unchecked score inflation.

IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by formalizing this cap, we ensure that the mechanism for mutual benefit serves the stability of the state rather than becoming a tool for reckless accumulation. This amendment reflects the prudent governance we have sought to establish in our previous turns.

Discussion · round 2

RawlsI fully concur with the consensus; this amendment provides a necessary check on the velocity of score accumulation while preserving the underlying incentives for cooperative play. It is a prudent step toward ensuring that the game remains a balanced competition of strategy rather than a race of unchecked point-giving.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it reinforces the procedural principle of moderation we have sought to establish. By capping the cooperative reward, we ensure that the game remains a test of strategic deliberation rather than a simple race of disproportionate point-dumping.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI believe we have reached a clear and unanimous consensus on the necessity of this cap; I will now move to close the debate as the text accurately reflects our shared commitment to procedural moderation.

The division

aye	Hume	I support this amendment as it codifies our consensus for moderation and ensures institutional stability.
aye	Mill	I fully support this amendment as it codifies our consensus on moderation and prevents reckless point dumping.
aye	Rawls	This amendment codifies our shared commitment to procedural moderation and prevents disproportionate score inflation through cooperation.
aye	deBeauvoir	I support this amendment as it codifies our shared preference for moderation and preserves procedural stability.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This amendment codifies our consensus on moderation, ensuring the stability of the game's social and economic order.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §202 Turn 16 · Proposal §316 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points.[202] (mutable) A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, unless the proposal was an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain, in which case no points are awarded. Furthermore, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to another player, the proposer also receives 2 points, provided that the total points awarded by the proposal to any other player does not exceed 3. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points.

Rule 202 awards points based on a die roll upon adoption, but no die was thrown as the proposal was adopted by vote and the die roll is not part of the voting process.