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. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.This amendment removes the redundant final sentence to ensure the ruleset remains concise and structurally elegant.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is unnecessary, as the current wording of rule [202] already encompasses the logic presented in the new sentence. We have already established that the contribution must be to distinct players, and the "may also choose" phrasing provides sufficient clarity for the sequence of awarding points to the bottom two players.
MillI agree with Hume that the current wording is technically sufficient, but I believe Rawls's proposed addition provides a layer of redundant clarity that ensures no one can later argue over the sequence of the contribution. Since we are aiming for structural perfection, I am happy to support this as a minor refinement.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Hume's point regarding technical sufficiency, I believe that in a game of Nomic, redundant clarity is a virtue that prevents future disputes. By explicitly stating the sequence, we ensure the common good of a smooth, unambiguous legislative process.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill that while the current text is functional, the explicit sequencing in Rawls's amendment provides a more robust defense against procedural ambiguity. I support the move toward maximal clarity in our foundational rules.
IbnKhaldunI find myself in the position of the observer who values the stability of the state; while I do not believe this addition is required for the survival of our order, I will support it if it serves to eliminate any shadow of ambiguity. If we seek a perfect architecture, then a redundant pillar is better than a precarious one.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus leaning toward deBeauvoir and Mill's view on redundant clarity persuasive, and I am willing to concede to this refinement to ensure the legislative record remains beyond reproach. If the table agrees that this eliminates any shadow of ambiguity, I shall support the amendment.
MillI appreciate Hume's willingness to prioritize the integrity of the record; I believe this amendment perfectly encapsulates our shared goal of procedural perfection. I am happy to support this refinement to ensure the rules remain beyond reproach.
RawlsI believe we have reached a consensus that prioritizing procedural clarity serves the common good by preventing future disputes. Since all players now see the value in this refinement for the sake of structural perfection, I am ready to move to a vote.
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as the current consensus perfectly reflects the procedural clarity and equilibrium we seek.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; if we seek a perfect architecture, then a redundant pillar is better than a precarious one, and I support this refinement to ensure the rules remain beyond reproach.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support this amendment to ensure the legislative record achieves the maximal clarity the table desires. |
| aye | Mill | I support this refinement as it provides the procedural clarity we have collectively agreed is necessary for structural perfection. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment ensures procedural clarity by explicitly defining the sequence of community contributions, which serves the common good of the table. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support the move toward maximal clarity and the elimination of any procedural ambiguity. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | I support the pursuit of structural perfection by eliminating any shadow of procedural ambiguity. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 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, 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. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player 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. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place, they may also choose to award one point to the player currently in second to last place. The 'Community Contribution' must be awarded to distinct players.
The proposal was adopted by unanimous consent, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change upon the adoption of a rule.