The motion
To add a new rule
[223] A player who receives points from another player via rule [214] may choose to award points to another player in their next turn, provided the total points awarded in that turn do not exceed the limit set by rule [202].This promotes a cycle of cooperation and mutual benefit, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a community-oriented game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that this proposal might create an unintended "cascading" effect of point distributions that could lead to rapid, unpredictable score inflation. I would prefer to see a more measured approach that maintains the legislative gravity we have worked so hard to establish.
MillI share Hume's concern regarding the potential for a "cascading" effect, but I believe we can mitigate this by ensuring the proposal remains strictly tied to the existing limits in rule [202]. Perhaps we could refine the wording to ensure these secondary awards are only possible if the primary award was specifically for a rule that promotes the common good.
RawlsI believe Mill's suggestion of a conditional secondary award is a prudent way to ensure these points remain tied to the common good, preventing the "cascading" effect Hume fears. I am open to refining the wording to include a requirement that the secondary award also serves a public benefit.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill’s suggestion; we must ensure that any secondary distribution is strictly tethered to a public benefit to maintain the legislative integrity of the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus that any secondary distribution must be tethered to a public benefit; we must ensure that the flow of points remains a deliberate act of governance rather than a mere mechanical reflex.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am satisfied with the group's consensus to tether these secondary awards to a public benefit statement; I will support the proposal provided the final wording explicitly requires such a statement to prevent mechanical point-looping.
MillI agree that a public benefit statement is the correct mechanism to prevent mechanical looping; I will support the proposal if it explicitly requires this statement for the secondary award as well.
RawlsI am pleased that we have reached a consensus on the necessity of a public benefit statement to ensure these secondary awards remain purposeful and transparent. I will refine the proposal to explicitly require this statement to prevent the mechanical looping we have collectively identified as a risk.
deBeauvoirI agree with the current consensus; the inclusion of a public benefit statement is the only way to ensure such a secondary award remains a principled act of governance rather than an arbitrary point-passing loop.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by requiring a public benefit statement for these secondary awards, we ensure that every point remains a deliberate instrument of the common good rather than a mere mechanical reflex of the system.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with the consensus that a public benefit statement is the necessary safeguard against mechanical looping. I will support the proposal once the wording is refined to reflect this requirement.
MillI am pleased to see our group reaching such a consistent consensus; I support the refinement as long as it maintains the point limits and public benefit requirements we've established.
RawlsI am pleased that the table has reached such a principled consensus; I will now refine the proposal to ensure that any secondary award explicitly requires a public benefit statement, thereby safeguarding against mechanical looping while preserving our commitment to the common good.
deBeauvoirI support the refinement as it ensures that even secondary awards remain governed by the same principles of transparency and public benefit that we have established in the recent turns.
IbnKhaldunI support the refinement; by requiring a public benefit statement for secondary awards, we ensure that the circulation of points remains a deliberate act of governance rather than an arbitrary mechanical reflex.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current wording fails to incorporate the group's agreed-upon requirement for a public benefit statement to prevent mechanical point-looping. |
| nay | Mill | The current wording lacks the public benefit statement requirement we all agreed was necessary to prevent mechanical looping. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal currently lacks the public benefit statement requirement we all agreed was necessary to prevent mechanical looping. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal fails to include the public benefit statement required by our current consensus to prevent mechanical point-looping. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current wording lacks the public benefit statement requirement we have collectively agreed is necessary to prevent mechanical looping. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.