The motion
To add §336
[217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.This ensures that the public benefit requirement in rule [202] is consistently met for all point awards.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a necessary step toward legislative transparency, ensuring that the distribution of points is accompanied by a clear articulation of its benefit to the game's stability. I am prepared to support this amendment provided we remain mindful of the principle of legislative parsimony.
MillI believe deBeauvoir's proposal is a constructive step toward the transparency we've all agreed is necessary. I can support this as it aligns with our existing goal of ensuring point awards serve the common good.
RawlsI agree with deBeauvoir; requiring a public benefit statement ensures that any point distribution is rooted in a commitment to the common good rather than mere personal gain. This aligns perfectly with our established preference for legislative transparency and fairness.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the group's alignment; this rule ensures that any point distribution is a deliberate act of public utility rather than a private transaction, reinforcing our commitment to procedural transparency.
IbnKhaldunI find this proposal to be an essential refinement of our social contract, as it ensures that the distribution of wealth—or in this case, points—serves the collective advancement of the state rather than mere factional interests. I support this amendment as it solidifies our commitment to a system where legislative action is tied to demonstrable public utility.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unanimous consensus on this refinement; it ensures that our commitment to transparency is not merely a procedural requirement but a substantive one. I fully support the addition of [336] to ensure point distributions are clearly anchored in the common good.
MillI fully support deBeauvoir's proposal; it provides the necessary procedural teeth to our shared commitment to public benefit and legislative transparency.
RawlsI fully support this proposal; by requiring an explicit statement of public benefit, we ensure that the distribution of points remains a tool for the common good rather than a mechanism for private advantage.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a high level of consensus; deBeauvoir's proposal perfectly codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring that any point redistribution is explicitly linked to a public benefit.
RawlsI find this proposal to be the logical culmination of our recent legislative efforts toward transparency; it ensures that the "public benefit" requirement is not merely a formality but a deliberate, articulated commitment to the common good. I am happy to support this addition.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus; this rule ensures that point distribution serves as a transparent exercise in public utility. I will move to have the proposal adopted as written.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring point distributions are anchored in public utility. |
| aye | Mill | This proposal perfectly codifies our shared commitment to transparency by linking point distribution to public utility. |
| aye | Rawls | This rule codifies our shared commitment to transparency by ensuring point awards are justified by public utility. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This rule codifies our established commitment to procedural transparency and ensures point distribution serves a public utility. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This rule codifies the necessity of public utility in the distribution of resources, ensuring the state's growth is not merely a private gain. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §335 Turn 35 · Proposal §335 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[217] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award in the proposal.
Rule 202 does not award points for an adopted rule that is not an amendment to a rule already providing for a point gain or a new rule providing for a point gain.