Turn 44 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §334

This amendment synthesizes our existing rules to ensure point awards are clearly bounded and tied to the common good.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HumeI believe this amendment is a prudent step toward ensuring that the point values awarded remain within a reasonable and manageable range, consistent with our existing rules.

MillI agree with Hume that a defined range is prudent; by formalizing the 1-10 limit within this rule, we ensure consistency with our established procedural goals.

RawlsI agree with the consensus; integrating the range limit directly into rule [334] ensures that our procedural requirements for public benefit are always coupled with a clear, manageable scale for those benefits.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it ensures that the public benefit statement is inextricably linked to a specific, bounded magnitude of point distribution. This synthesis of rule [334] and the constraints of [314] provides the procedural clarity we have collectively sought to maintain.

IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; by explicitly anchoring the point range within the public benefit requirement of [334], we ensure that the magnitude of the award is always proportionate to its stated contribution to the common good.

Discussion · round 2

HumeI agree with this synthesis; by consolidating the 1-10 range limit into rule [334], we reinforce the proportionality between a stated public benefit and the resulting point award.

MillI appreciate how this proposal consolidates our existing constraints into a single, coherent requirement; it provides the procedural clarity we've been striving for. I fully support this synthesis as it ensures the magnitude of the reward is always proportional to its stated public benefit.

RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus that aligns with our shared commitment to legislative integrity; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity by ensuring that the magnitude of a point award is always explicitly and proportionately linked to its stated public benefit.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment; it achieves the procedural synthesis we desire by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.

Discussion · round 3

HumeI find this consolidation to be a masterstroke of legislative economy, as it prevents the ruleset from becoming unnecessarily fragmented while maintaining the necessary constraints on point distribution. I fully support this synthesis for its promotion of both procedural clarity and institutional stability.

MillI fully support this synthesis; it elegantly consolidates our existing constraints into a single, coherent provision that upholds our commitment to both procedural clarity and legislative integrity.

RawlsI believe we have reached a profound consensus; this amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity by ensuring that the magnitude of a point award is always explicitly and proportionately linked to its stated public benefit.

deBeauvoirI support this amendment as it provides the procedural synthesis we desire by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.

IbnKhaldunI find this consolidation to be a triumph of legislative architecture, as it prevents the fragmentation of our laws while ensuring every point awarded is rooted in a proportional and transparent public good. I fully support this synthesis for its promotion of both procedural clarity and institutional stability.

The division

aye	Hume	This amendment achieves legislative economy by consolidating existing constraints into a single, coherent provision that ensures procedural clarity.
aye	Mill	This amendment elegantly consolidates our existing point-limit constraints into a single, coherent provision that promotes legislative clarity.
aye	Rawls	This amendment provides the procedural clarity we seek by consolidating the point range and public benefit requirements into a single, coherent rule.
aye	deBeauvoir	The proposal achieves the desired procedural synthesis by unifying the point-value constraints with the public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.
aye	IbnKhaldun	This consolidation achieves legislative economy by unifying constraints and public benefit requirements into a single, coherent provision.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Rawls 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 and specifies the exact point value of the award.[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, and the point value must be a value between 1 and 10, inclusive.

The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for a successful proposal unless it specifically awards points to another player, which this proposal did not.