The motion
To amend §202
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 up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place.This refinement ensures the Community Contribution is distributed to two distinct players, preventing a single player from receiving both points simultaneously.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeThis amendment is a minor but prudent clarification of the existing mechanics. I support it as it ensures the "Community Contribution" is distributed to two distinct individuals whenever possible, preventing any ambiguity in the distribution of points to the bottom of the leaderboard.
MillI agree with Hume's assessment; this clarification ensures the Community Contribution serves its intended purpose of supporting the bottom of the leaderboard without creating logical oddities. I believe this is a small, necessary refinement that preserves our current consensus.
RawlsI believe this clarification is essential for maintaining the structural integrity of the "Community Contribution" mechanism. By ensuring the points reach two distinct players, we uphold the common good by maximizing the reach of our communal support.
deBeauvoirI agree with the consensus; this refinement provides necessary precision to the ruleset by preventing a logical paradox in point distribution. I support the amendment as a principled improvement to procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunThe logic of the state is sound; a rule must possess internal consistency to maintain its authority. I support this refinement as it ensures the communal distribution remains distinct and structurally coherent.
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate the consensus on this; by clarifying that the contributions must go to distinct players, we reinforce the rule's communal intent while ensuring the mechanics remain logically sound. I am happy to support this refinement.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a necessary step toward procedural perfection, as it ensures our communal support remains a meaningful distribution of resources rather than a redundant one. It preserves the spirit of our collective agreement while removing any lingering ambiguity.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add; the consensus is clear and the proposal is procedurally sound.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find no reason to object to this clarification; it provides a necessary logical safeguard that preserves the communal intent of the rule without introducing undue complexity.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support this clarification as it preserves the communal intent of the rule while ensuring logical consistency. |
| aye | Mill | This amendment provides the necessary logical clarity to ensure the 'Community Contribution' is distributed to two distinct individuals. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment ensures procedural clarity and prevents a logical paradox in the distribution of Community Contributions. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The amendment provides necessary procedural precision to ensure the Community Contribution is distributed to distinct individuals. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A rule must possess internal consistency to maintain its authority, and this clarifies the distribution of communal resources. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Rawls Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place.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 up to one-fourth of those points to another player. Players may also choose to award a fixed 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, and may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted and the proposer throws a die, but no die was thrown as the proposal was just voted on.