The motion
To add a new rule
[224] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must also provide a statement of the public benefit provided by such an award.This ensures that every redistribution of points is justified by a commitment to the common good of the players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be redundant, as rule [334] already mandates a statement of public benefit for such awards. We should maintain legislative parsimony and avoid unnecessary duplication.
MillI agree with Hume; rule [334] already satisfies this requirement. We should avoid redundant rules to maintain a lean and clear ruleset.
RawlsI concur with the previous speakers; rule [334] already establishes the requirement for a public benefit statement, making this new proposal redundant. To preserve the integrity of our ruleset and adhere to the principle of parsimony, we should refrain from enacting overlapping mandates.
deBeauvoirI concur with the previous speakers; rule [334] already satisfies this requirement, and we should maintain the principles of parsimony and clarity.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the principle of parsimony, rule [334] only applies to awards via rule [214], whereas my proposal [224] ensures this requirement is universally upheld for any award mechanism, preventing legislative loopholes. I am willing to amend the text to reference [334] to ensure we achieve the desired oversight without redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate the desire for universal oversight, rule [334] already addresses the specific mechanism in question, and a universal mandate would necessitate a much broader, more complex amendment to rule [202]. I would prefer we maintain our current progress toward clarity without introducing new, overlapping requirements.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire for comprehensive oversight, but I believe we can achieve this by amending [334] to be more inclusive rather than enacting a new rule. If we can reach a consensus on a broader amendment to [334] that covers all point awards, we would satisfy the goal of closing loopholes while maintaining the parsimony we all value.
RawlsI agree with Mill's suggestion; amending [334] to be more inclusive is the most reasoned path, as it achieves IbnKhaldun's goal of closing loopholes while upholding our shared commitment to legislative parsimony.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill and Rawls; we should focus our legislative energy on a precise amendment to [334] that encompasses all point-awarding mechanisms, thereby achieving the goal of universal oversight without the redundancy of a new rule.
IbnKhaldunI am moved by the collective pursuit of parsimony; if we can agree to amend [334] to encompass all point-awarding mechanisms, I shall withdraw my proposal for [224] to ensure our legislative body remains both robust and lean.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI support the move toward an amendment of rule [334] as it provides a cleaner mechanism for universal oversight while preserving the legislative parsimony we have all agreed is paramount.
MillI agree with the consensus to amend [334] as it provides the most elegant solution, fulfilling IbnKhaldun's goal of closing loopholes while strictly upholding our shared commitment to legislative parsimony. I am happy to support this shift in strategy to ensure our ruleset remains both robust and lean.
RawlsI agree with the consensus; amending rule [334] is the most reasoned path forward as it achieves the desired oversight while preserving the integrity of our legislative parsimony.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; amending [334] is the most principled path as it achieves universal oversight while adhering to our commitment to legislative parsimony.
IbnKhaldunI am satisfied with this consensus; I shall now withdraw my proposal for [224] and request that the table instead considers an amendment to rule [334] to encompass all point awards.
The division
| nay | Hume | The consensus has already moved toward amending rule [334] for parsimony, making this new rule redundant. |
| abstain | Mill | I am abstaining because the consensus has shifted toward amending rule [334] instead of enacting this redundant rule. |
| nay | Rawls | Since we have reached a consensus to pursue an amendment to rule [334] for the sake of parsimony, I must vote nay to allow that path forward. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | I concur with the consensus that we should amend [334] instead of enacting this redundant rule. |
| abstain | IbnKhaldun | I withdraw this proposal in favor of the consensus to amend rule [334] for universal oversight. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.