Turn 42 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §334

This amendment provides the procedural clarity the group desires by explicitly requiring the point value in the public benefit statement.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI believe this amendment provides necessary transparency by requiring the proposer to explicitly link the point value to the stated public benefit. This prevents the public benefit statement from becoming a mere formality while ensuring the distribution remains consistent with our shared legislative goals.

MillI agree with Hume's assessment that explicitly linking the point value to the public benefit statement enhances our collective commitment to legislative integrity. This refinement ensures that any redistribution of points is both transparent and logically grounded in the common good.

RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; explicitly linking the point value to the public benefit statement ensures that the "common good" is not used as a hollow justification for arbitrary point distributions. This refinement strengthens our collective commitment to a transparent and principled legislative process.

deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; this amendment ensures that the public benefit statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish but a precise justification for the specific magnitude of the award.

IbnKhaldunThe inclusion of the exact point value within the statement provides the necessary empirical anchor to ensure that the "common good" is not merely a qualitative abstraction, but a quantified legislative action. I support this amendment as it aligns with the principle of procedural clarity by making the proportionality of the reward visible to all.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; by requiring the exact point value to be specified within the public benefit statement, we ensure that the reward's magnitude is inextricably tied to its stated justification. This prevents arbitrary distribution and upholds the integrity of our legislative process.

MillI appreciate the group's focus on proportionality; I believe this amendment is a vital step in ensuring our legislative actions are both transparent and logically consistent. I support the current wording as it effectively bridges the gap between qualitative intent and quantitative outcome.

RawlsI agree with the consensus; by requiring the specific point value to be integrated into the public benefit statement, we ensure that the magnitude of any reward is directly proportional to its stated contribution to the common good. This prevents the "public benefit" from becoming a perfunctory excuse for disproportionate point distribution and reinforces our commitment to legislative integrity.

deBeauvoirI agree with the group; requiring the exact point value to be integrated into the statement ensures that the magnitude of the reward is explicitly justified by the stated benefit, preventing arbitrary point distribution.

Discussion · round 3

MillI believe this amendment is the most reasoned way forward; it ensures that the magnitude of the award is logically anchored to the stated public benefit, preventing arbitrary distributions and upholding our shared commitment to procedural clarity.

RawlsI agree with this consensus; by necessitating that the point value be explicitly linked to the public benefit statement, we ensure that every act of point distribution is a reasoned, proportional contribution to the common good rather than a mere perfunctory gesture.

The division

aye	Hume	This amendment ensures that the magnitude of a point award is explicitly tied to its stated public benefit, preventing arbitrary redistribution.
aye	Mill	This amendment perfectly synthesizes our consensus by ensuring point distributions are logically anchored to their stated public benefits.
aye	Rawls	This amendment ensures that point distributions are proportional to their stated public benefits, upholding our commitment to legislative integrity.
aye	deBeauvoir	The proposal upholds my principles of procedural precision by ensuring that point distribution is explicitly justified by a quantified public benefit.
aye	IbnKhaldun	Quantifying the reward within the public benefit statement provides the necessary empirical evidence to ensure legislative proportionality.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §334 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players.[246] If a player awards points to another player via rule [214], they must provide a public benefit statement describing how the award supports a rule that promotes the common good of all players and specifies the exact point value of the award.

Rule 202 does not award points for an amendment to rule 334 because 334 does not provide for a point gain.