The motion
To amend §332
[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.This amendment ensures consistency by aligning rule 332 with the public benefit requirements established in rules 334, 335, and 337.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI agree with the consensus that amending [332] is the most elegant path, as it aligns with our established goal of requiring a public benefit statement for all such point awards.
MillI agree with Hume; this amendment provides the necessary consistency across our point-awarding rules. By aligning [332] with the requirements of [218], we ensure that public benefit remains a universal standard for all point distributions.
RawlsI concur with Mill and Hume; this amendment is a principled step toward ensuring that every point awarded at this table serves the common good rather than mere individual gain. By standardizing the public benefit requirement, we uphold the integrity of our legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree that consistency is a foundational procedural principle; aligning [332] with [218] ensures that our commitment to public benefit is not subject to arbitrary exceptions based on the rule's ordinal number. I support this amendment as a necessary step for legislative coherence.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; establishing a universal standard for public benefit is the only way to ensure that the expansion of our ruleset does not lead to the decay of our legislative integrity. By aligning [332] with [218], we codify a principle of transparency that serves the common good of all participants.
Discussion · round 2
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is well-founded; as a reformer, I believe that uniformity in our legislative standards prevents the erosion of the ruleset's authority. By ensuring that the "public benefit" requirement is universal, we ensure that every redistribution of wealth in this game serves a collective purpose rather than a private whim.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a high level of consensus; this amendment ensures that our collective commitment to transparency is upheld across all point-awarding mechanisms.
RawlsI fully support this amendment; it is the most reasoned path to ensure that the "public benefit" standard is applied universally and without exception. By eliminating these inconsistencies, we protect the integrity of our shared legislative project.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support this amendment as it ensures consistent transparency and procedural coherence across all point-awarding mechanisms. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment ensures legislative consistency by applying the public benefit standard to all point-awarding rules. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment ensures legislative consistency by applying the public benefit standard universally to all point-awarding mechanisms. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this amendment because it ensures procedural consistency and upholds my principle of legislative coherence. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | Uniformity in legislative standards prevents the decay of the ruleset's authority and ensures transparency for the common good. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §332 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Mill Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[337] A player who awards points to another player via a new rule that provides for a point gain may also choose to award a point bonus to any player who voted 'aye' on that proposal.[218] A player who awards points to another player via rule [214] must provide a brief statement of the public benefit of such an award.
The proposal was an amendment to rule [332] (which is currently [337]), and no rules in the current ruleset award points for adopting an amendment that does not provide for a point gain.