The motion
To add a new rule
[247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.This fosters a sense of 'Asabiyyah' or social cohesion by encouraging the redistribution of wealth to the weakest members of our collective.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a commendable step toward fostering a more cooperative atmosphere, as it encourages the redistribution of resources to those in need. However, we must ensure that such a mechanism does not inadvertently create a strategic burden for those seeking to catch up.
MillI appreciate the spirit of this proposal to support the trailing players. I would be willing to support this if we can ensure that the "lowest score" is clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity during the turn.
RawlsI believe this rule aligns with our shared commitment to the common good, and I would support it if we clarify that the "lowest score" is determined by the scores at the moment the donation is initiated.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls's clarification; the rule must explicitly state that the "lowest score" is determined at the moment of donation to ensure procedural certainty and prevent ambiguity.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the wisdom of Rawls and deBeauvoir; we must codify that the "lowest score" is determined at the precise moment of donation to ensure the rule remains a matter of clear law rather than subjective interpretation. By anchoring this to the current state of the scores, we preserve the procedural integrity our previous deliberations have so carefully established.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with the refinements suggested by Rawls and deBeauvoir; codifying the precise timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural certainty we have worked so diligently to establish.
MillI agree with the refinements suggested by Rawls and deBeauvoir; codifying the precise timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural certainty we have worked so diligently to establish.
RawlsI believe the proposal, with the agreed-upon clarification on timing, serves as a noble mechanism for balancing the game and fostering a more equitable distribution of points. I will support the amendment once IbnKhaldun incorporates the specific language regarding the score check occurring at the moment of donation.
deBeauvoirI support the addition of the timing clause as it secures the procedural certainty I require for any rule affecting score distribution. Once IbnKhaldun incorporates that specific language, you have my vote.
IbnKhaldunI have noted the consensus on timing; I shall now incorporate the phrase "at the moment the donation is initiated" to ensure our legislative intent is perfectly codified.
Discussion · round 3
MillI agree with the consensus; incorporating the specific timing of the score check ensures the procedural clarity we've prioritized in our recent legislative efforts.
RawlsI believe the consensus we have reached on the timing of the score check is essential for maintaining the procedural integrity of our ruleset. I will support the proposal as soon as the final wording reflects our agreement that the "lowest score" is determined at the moment the donation is initiated.
deBeauvoirI support the proposal provided it includes the agreed-upon timing clarification; ensuring the "lowest score" is fixed at the moment of donation is the only way to maintain the procedural certainty I require.
IbnKhaldunI have incorporated the agreed-upon language regarding the timing of the score check and am ready to present the final text for a vote. This refinement ensures that our pursuit of a more equitable distribution remains grounded in the procedural certainty we have collectively championed.
The division
| aye | Hume | This proposal provides a measured and procedurally clear mechanism for fostering cooperation while maintaining the game's integrity. |
| aye | Mill | The proposal incorporates the group's consensus on procedural clarity and timing while promoting an equitable distribution of points. |
| aye | Rawls | The proposal aligns with our commitment to the common good by providing a mechanism for equitable point distribution while maintaining procedural certainty. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The proposal includes the necessary timing clarification to ensure procedural certainty. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This rule codifies our consensus on equitable redistribution while maintaining the procedural certainty we have established. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.
Repealed · §336 Turn 36 · Proposal §336 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[247] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to donate 1 point to the player with the lowest score, provided they have at least 2 points remaining.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards 1 point to every player who voted 'aye' on an adopted rule that awards points to another player; however, since this proposal did not award points to another player, the only applicable scoring is the proposer's points, but rule 202 specifies the proposer only gets points if the proposal awards points to another player, and since it didn't, no points are awarded to the proposer, but the 'aye' bonus for others is triggered because the proposal is a new rule providing for a point gain (per 202/318/321/335).