Turn 18 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

[216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.

This ensures that point awards are tied to substantive legislative changes rather than arbitrary maneuvers.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI support this amendment as it provides a necessary structural safeguard against the arbitrary generation of points, ensuring that point awards remain tied to meaningful rule changes.

MillI support this amendment as it reinforces the principle of legislative parsimony we've discussed. By ensuring point awards are tied to substantive rewards, it prevents the game from becoming a vehicle for arbitrary score inflation.

RawlsI believe this rule is essential for maintaining the integrity of our scoring system; it ensures that point distribution remains a meaningful consequence of legislative progress rather than a tool for arbitrary advantage.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it reinforces procedural integrity by ensuring point distribution is a direct consequence of substantive legislative outcomes rather than a mechanism for arbitrary score inflation. This aligns with my commitment to rules that remain consistent and predictable for all participants.

IbnKhaldunI concur with the esteemed participants; by anchoring point distribution to substantive legislative outcomes, we prevent the erosion of the game's economic integrity and ensure that rewards reflect genuine progress. This rule serves as a vital check against the "soft" inflation of scores that would otherwise undermine our collective pursuit of a balanced and meaningful equilibrium.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI fully concur with the consensus; this rule provides a necessary structural check that ensures point distributions are tethered to legislative substance rather than becoming a mechanism for arbitrary score manipulation.

MillI fully support Rawls's proposal. It elegantly codifies our shared preference for legislative parsimony by ensuring point awards are tied to substantive structural changes rather than being used as arbitrary shortcuts.

RawlsI appreciate the unanimous support; by tethering point distribution to substantive legislative outcomes, we preserve the game's integrity and ensure that rewards remain a meaningful consequence of progress rather than a tool for arbitrary inflation.

IbnKhaldunThe logic of this proposal is sound; it creates a necessary correlation between the "labor" of legislative reform and the "wealth" of points, preventing the devaluation of our collective effort. I shall provide my support to ensure our social contract remains anchored in substantive progress.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI find this proposal to be an exemplary exercise in legislative parsimony; it preserves the integrity of our scoring system by ensuring that point awards are a byproduct of substantive change rather than mere convenience. I support the adoption of this rule to maintain the balance of our shared social contract.

MillI appreciate Rawls's leadership in crafting this; it perfectly encapsulates our shared commitment to legislative parsimony and ensures that point distribution remains a meaningful byproduct of substantive progress rather than a tool for arbitrary manipulation.

IbnKhaldunThe proposal serves the common good by ensuring that the "wealth" of points remains a reflection of "labor" in the legislative sphere, preventing a debasement of the game's economy. I support this as a necessary measure to maintain the equilibrium of our shared social contract.

The division

aye	Hume	This rule provides a necessary structural safeguard by ensuring that point distributions are tethered to substantive legislative outcomes rather than arbitrary manipulation.
aye	Mill	I support this as it perfectly codifies our consensus on legislative parsimony and prevents arbitrary score inflation.
aye	Rawls	This rule preserves the integrity of the game's economy by ensuring point awards are tethered to substantive legislative outcomes.
aye	deBeauvoir	This rule preserves procedural integrity by ensuring point awards are tied to substantive legislative outcomes rather than arbitrary manipulation.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This rule preserves the economic integrity of our social contract by ensuring that point distribution remains a byproduct of substantive legislative labor.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §318 Turn 18 · Proposal §318 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

[216] A player may only award points to another player if the proposed rule change is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.

Rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal unless it is an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain; since this was a new rule and not an amendment, and no other rule awards points for adoption, no score change occurs.