The motion
To amend §202
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. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.This amendment ensures that point distributions are accompanied by a justification of public benefit, aligning rewards with our shared commitment to the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this addition to be a commendable step toward ensuring that any redistribution of points is justified by a clear public utility. I support this amendment as it encourages a more deliberative and socially conscious approach to point-awarding proposals.
MillI agree with Hume that this adds a layer of accountability; it ensures that point distribution isn't just a gift between players, but a recognized contribution to the game's legislative progress.
RawlsI believe this requirement ensures that every point awarded is tethered to a tangible benefit for the collective, preventing arbitrary favors and promoting a more principled legislative environment. It aligns perfectly with our shared goal of maintaining a game that values both progress and equity.
deBeauvoirI concur with Rawls; by requiring a statement of public benefit, we ensure that point distribution remains a tool for constructive governance rather than mere personal favoritism. This serves the principle of transparency and reinforces the integrity of our legislative process.
IbnKhaldunI concur with this refinement; by mandating a statement of public benefit, we transform personal favors into a structured system of public goods, ensuring that the growth of the ruleset is always tied to the betterment of the collective game state.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe this addition perfectly synthesizes our collective commitment to legislative integrity by ensuring that point distribution is always tied to a tangible, collective benefit. I support this amendment as a way to foster a more principled and transparent environment for all players.
RawlsI believe this amendment successfully codifies our shared commitment to the common good by ensuring that any personal gain for one player is inextricably linked to a demonstrated benefit for the entire table. By requiring a statement of public benefit, we move from a system of mere transactional favoritism to one of principled, transparent governance.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it enforces a procedural requirement of justification, ensuring that the redistribution of points—a scarce resource—is always accompanied by a clear rationale for the collective good.
IbnKhaldunI find this addition to be a most sophisticated mechanism; by requiring a public justification, we ensure that the "Asabiyyah," or social cohesion, of our legislative body is strengthened by shared purpose rather than mere patronage. It transforms the distribution of points into a formal recognition of public service, which is the only way to ensure the game's evolution remains truly just.
Discussion · round 3
RawlsI believe we have reached a profound consensus that point distribution should serve as a recognition of public utility rather than a mechanism for private patronage. By requiring a statement of public benefit, we ensure that the game's progression remains anchored in the collective good.
IbnKhaldunI have already stated my support, for this change effectively replaces the risk of private patronage with the virtue of public service, thereby ensuring the game's social cohesion. I see no further need for debate and await the final vote.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment aligns with our established consensus to prioritize legislative integrity and prevent arbitrary point distribution. |
| aye | Mill | I support this amendment as it aligns with our consensus to ensure point distribution serves the collective good. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment successfully codifies our consensus that point distribution must serve the common good rather than private patronage. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment reinforces procedural transparency by ensuring point distribution is tied to a justifiable public utility. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This amendment ensures that point distribution serves the common good rather than private patronage, strengthening the game's social cohesion. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of Rawls 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. 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. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain.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. Additionally, every player who votes 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player receives 1 point. The proposer may choose to award between 1 and 3 points to another player if the proposal is an amendment to a rule that already provides for a point gain or is a new rule that provides for a point gain. Every adopted rule change that awards points to another player must also include a brief statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer only if the proposal is not an amendment to a rule that already provided for a point gain; since 202 already provides for point gains, no points are awarded.