The motion
To add a new rule
[326] A player may award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place regardless of the point-sharing limit in rule [202].I propose this to formalize the community spirit we've discussed, ensuring the bottom player always has a path to recovery.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be a redundant expansion of rule [202], which already incorporates a "Community Contribution" of one point to the player in last place. We should seek to maintain the lean structure of the ruleset by refining [202] rather than adding new rules to accomplish the same end.
MillHume, I appreciate your commitment to a lean ruleset, but I believe this amendment provides a necessary clarification to ensure the Community Contribution is always available even if a player's specific point-sharing limit is reached. I would be happy to merge this into a refinement of rule [202] if that would satisfy your preference for structural simplicity.
RawlsI agree with Hume that we should prioritize structural simplicity; since rule [202] already allows for this contribution, Mill, I would support a consolidated amendment to [202] that explicitly clarifies the contribution is independent of the sharing limit.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Rawls; because rule [202] already provides for this contribution, the addition of [326] is redundant. I would support a consolidated amendment to [202] that clarifies the contribution is independent of the sharing limit.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; we must favor the elegance of a unified rule. Let us refine [202] to clarify the independence of the Community Contribution, thereby avoiding the clutter of redundant legislation.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am pleased to see such a unified consensus regarding the redundancy of this proposal; I will support Mill's offer to consolidate this clarification into rule [202] once the text is prepared.
MillI am pleased that everyone is in agreement; I will now prepare a consolidated amendment to rule [202] that explicitly clarifies the independence of the Community Contribution to satisfy our collective desire for a lean ruleset.
RawlsI support Mill's initiative to consolidate this into rule [202], as it preserves the legislative integrity we have worked to establish by avoiding unnecessary duplication.
IbnKhaldunI concur with Mill's revised approach; by embedding this clarification into [202], we uphold the principle of *asabiyyah* by strengthening the collective structure without unnecessary fragmentation. I shall support the amendment once the wording is finalized to reflect this independence.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with this path forward; I look forward to reviewing the consolidated text for rule [202] to ensure it maintains our commitment to a lean and durable ruleset.
MillI appreciate the table's commitment to structural elegance; I will now draft the amendment to rule [202] to clarify that the Community Contribution is independent of the point-sharing limit.
RawlsI am in full agreement with the proposed path of consolidation; I believe that explicitly decoupling the Community Contribution from the point-sharing limit within rule [202] is the most elegant way to preserve our shared commitment to a lean ruleset.
deBeauvoirI agree that the consolidated amendment is the only principled path forward; it preserves the structural integrity of the ruleset while achieving the desired clarity. I will support the amendment to [202] as soon as Mill presents the finalized text.
IbnKhaldunI am eager to see the final text; by unifying these concepts, we ensure the ruleset remains a cohesive body of law rather than a fractured collection of redundancies.
The division
| nay | Hume | I am opposing this as a new rule because we have already agreed to consolidate its contents into rule [202] for the sake of a lean ruleset. |
| nay | Mill | As discussed, I am opting to support the consolidated amendment to rule [202] instead of this redundant new rule. |
| nay | Rawls | I support the consensus to consolidate this clarification into rule [202] rather than enacting a redundant new rule. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | This proposal is redundant and violates our consensus to maintain a lean ruleset by consolidating this clarification into rule [202]. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | As the consensus has shifted toward a consolidated amendment of rule [202], I must oppose this redundant addition to maintain legislative elegance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.