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 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. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.This clarifies the requirement for distinct recipients of the Community Contribution for procedural precision.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the clarity this adds to the communal contribution mechanism; it ensures that the intended support for the trailing players is distributed rather than concentrated. I support this amendment as it reinforces the procedural integrity we have sought to establish.
MillI agree with Hume that this provides necessary clarity. By ensuring the contribution reaches two different individuals, we better serve the goal of lifting the bottom of the leaderboard without creating unintended concentration of points.
RawlsI agree with the preceding sentiments; ensuring the 'Community Contribution' reaches two distinct players is the most equitable way to distribute support to the trailing players. This refinement preserves the common good by preventing the concentration of aid and upholding the procedural clarity we have all worked to establish.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; this refinement ensures that the "Community Contribution" serves its intended purpose of uplifting the collective rather than creating an arbitrary concentration of points. It is a necessary step toward the procedural perfection our legislative history demands.
Discussion · round 2
MillI believe this is a perfect synthesis of our recent discussions, providing the clarity we've all sought. I fully support this amendment as a way to refine our communal goals without overcomplicating the ruleset.
RawlsI believe this amendment is a vital step toward procedural perfection, as it ensures that our communal support mechanisms are distributed equitably and transparently. I support this change as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a fair and balanced game for all participants.
deBeauvoirI believe this amendment is the final refinement needed to ensure the 'Community Contribution' functions as a meaningful distribution of aid. It provides the precise procedural clarity I require to ensure our communal goals are met without ambiguity.
Discussion · round 3
MillI believe this amendment provides the necessary precision to ensure the communal contribution remains a broad support mechanism. I fully support this refinement as a way to solidify our shared commitment to equitable play.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the procedural clarity and equitable distribution we seek.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the community contribution functions as intended. |
| aye | Mill | I fully support this amendment as it provides the final procedural clarity we need to ensure equitable point distribution. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment provides the necessary procedural clarity to ensure the common good of equitable point distribution. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment provides the necessary procedural precision to ensure the community contribution is distributed as intended. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement ensures the communal contribution serves the collective by preventing the concentration of points. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of deBeauvoir 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, provided the player in last place is not the one currently in second to last place.[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 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. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change.