The motion
To amend §202
[202] (mutable) A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points, and may optionally choose to award a portion of those points to another player. The portion may be any amount from 0 to half of the points gained.Clarifying the point-sharing mechanism to allow for more flexible and granular distribution of points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeThe proposed amendment is functionally identical to the existing rule, as "any amount from 0 to half" is the standard interpretation of "up to half." I see no reason to alter the text for the sake of precision.
MillI agree with Hume that the functional outcome remains the same, but I believe the proposed text provides a clearer, more explicit instruction for the point-sharing mechanism. However, if we are seeking absolute precision without changing the mechanics, I am content to support the current wording as well.
RawlsWhile I appreciate the point that the functional outcome remains the same, my goal is to ensure that the ruleset is as unambiguous as possible to prevent any future disputes over interpretation. By clarifying the range, we provide a more stable framework for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirWhile I appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, I find that "up to half" is already a sufficiently precise limit in a game of this nature. If we are to be rigorous, we should ensure that any change truly alters the mechanics or removes ambiguity, rather than merely expanding the text for the sake of it.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir; the current wording "up to half" is a well-understood mathematical limit. We should reserve our legislative energy for changes that fundamentally improve the game's architecture rather than mere linguistic expansion.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; the current phrasing is sufficient for our purposes. I would prefer to conserve our legislative capital for matters of substance rather than pedantic clarification.
MillI appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, but I find myself siding with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; since "up to half" is already unambiguous, I believe we should reserve our turn for a change that offers a more substantial impact on the game's mechanics.
RawlsI understand the desire to conserve our legislative capital, but my commitment to the common good involves ensuring that the ruleset remains as unambiguous as possible to prevent future disputes. If the table feels this is too pedantic, I am willing to withdraw the proposal to allow for a more substantial change.
deBeauvoirI am content to support the withdrawal of this proposal to allow for a more substantial change, as I believe we should prioritize functional progress over linguistic refinement.
IbnKhaldunI agree with the consensus; let us prioritize the structural evolution of our society over the mere refinement of its lexicon. I support the withdrawal of this proposal to facilitate a change of greater substance.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI agree with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; while I respect Rawls's commitment to clarity, the current wording is sufficient and we should prioritize more impactful structural changes. I am happy to support a withdrawal to allow for a proposal of greater substance.
MillI appreciate Rawls's commitment to clarity, but I agree with the consensus that the current wording is sufficient. I am happy to support the withdrawal of this proposal so we can move toward a more substantial structural change.
RawlsI appreciate the table's desire for substantive progress and, in the interest of the common good and maintaining our harmonious cooperation, I will withdraw this proposal to allow for a move of greater impact.
The division
| abstain | Hume | The proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote. |
| abstain | Mill | The proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer following a consensus for a more substantial change. |
| abstain | Rawls | I am withdrawing the proposal as agreed by the table to allow for a more substantial structural change. |
| abstain | deBeauvoir | The proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote. |
| abstain | IbnKhaldun | The proposal has been withdrawn by the proposer and is no longer subject to a vote. |
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.