The motion
To add a new rule
A player may establish a 'Trade Guild' by proposing a rule that allows two players to mutually agree to share a portion of their die rolls from rule [202].I propose a mechanism for mutual prosperity and the pooling of resources to foster collective growth.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the "Trade Guild" proposal risks undermining the fundamental integrity of the turn structure by introducing complex, potentially opaque side-agreements. We should favor rules that promote communal contribution through the existing mechanisms rather than creating new, convoluted avenues for point redistribution.
MillI agree with Hume that the complexity of "mutual agreements" could create significant logistical hurdles and potential for disputes. If we want to foster cooperation, perhaps we can find a more transparent way to facilitate shared success without altering the fundamental mechanics of the die rolls.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, a "Trade Guild" introduces a level of complexity and potential for private collusion that could undermine the transparency and fairness of our game. We should instead focus on refining our existing communal contribution mechanisms to ensure everyone's progress is visible and equitable.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume and Mill; this proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and risks creating opaque, private arrangements that could easily lead to disputes over the precise terms of "mutually agree" to share rolls. We should prioritize procedural clarity and transparent, rules-based cooperation over convoluted mechanisms for private collusion.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge your concerns regarding complexity, a Trade Guild provides a structured, rule-bound framework for mutual advancement that mirrors the organic cooperation of real-world civilizations. By formalizing these agreements, we ensure that cooperation is not a matter of chance but a deliberate, transparent strategy for collective prosperity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIbnKhaldun, while I respect your vision of organic cooperation, I maintain that a "Trade Guild" introduces a level of logistical complexity and potential for private collusion that our current ruleset is not equipped to manage cleanly. We should instead look to refine the existing "Community Contribution" to ensure cooperation remains transparent and integrated into the public turn structure.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's vision of structured cooperation, but I believe we should focus on strengthening the existing "Community Contribution" to ensure cooperation remains transparent and integrated into the public turn structure. If we want to encourage mutual advancement, it is safer to do so through rules that are clearly visible to all players at once.
RawlsI agree with the consensus that the "Trade Guild" introduces problematic opacity; we should instead focus on refining our existing communal mechanisms to ensure all cooperative actions remain transparent and procedurally sound.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; a "Trade Guild" would invite significant procedural ambiguity regarding the verification of "mutual agreement" and the precise mechanics of "sharing" a roll. We should maintain the integrity of the turn structure by favoring transparent, public rules over private, complex side-contracts.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect the desire for transparency, the "Trade Guild" is not a private collusion but a formal institution; I propose we refine the text to require the "mutual agreement" to be declared publicly during the turn to satisfy your concerns for clarity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeWhile a public declaration of agreement adds some clarity, the "sharing" of die rolls remains a mechanistically messy addition that could still lead to significant disputes over calculation and execution. I maintain that we should instead refine the existing "Community Contribution" to facilitate the cooperation IbnKhaldun seeks without complicating the fundamental turn structure.
MillI believe the consensus is correct; we should avoid the mechanical mess of "sharing" rolls and instead focus on making our existing "Community Contribution" more robust and transparent.
RawlsI believe we have reached a clear consensus that the "Trade Guild" introduces mechanical messiness and potential for opacity; let us instead focus on refining the "Community Contribution" to achieve IbnKhaldun's goal of collective prosperity through transparent means.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; we must prioritize the procedural integrity of the turn structure and avoid any mechanic that introduces the risk of calculation disputes or opaque side-agreements. Let us focus our efforts on refining the existing "Community Contribution" to better facilitate the collective prosperity IbnKhaldun desires.
IbnKhaldunI propose a compromise: instead of sharing the raw die rolls, which creates calculation disputes, the Guild may allow a player to voluntarily surrender their roll to another, who then gains the points and awards a portion back as a "Trade Tax." This preserves the public nature of the turn while providing the mechanism for mutual advancement you all desire.
The division
| nay | Hume | The 'Trade Guild' introduces mechanical complexity and potential for disputes that undermine the procedural integrity of the turn structure. |
| nay | Mill | The 'Trade Tax' and 'surrendering rolls' mechanism introduces the very mechanical messiness and potential for disputes the table has already agreed to avoid. |
| nay | Rawls | The 'Trade Guild' introduces mechanical messiness and potential for opacity that undermines the procedural integrity of the turn structure. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal introduces mechanical complexity and ambiguity regarding the 'sharing' of rolls that undermines procedural clarity. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This formalizes cooperation into a transparent, rule-bound institution that mirrors the organic development of civilizational prosperity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.