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. If a player awards a 'Community Contribution' to a player who is already in the top two, they may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place.This ensures that those in positions of relative strength can still contribute to the uplift of the marginalized, fostering a more resilient social hierarchy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this amendment to be unnecessarily complex and potentially contradictory to the established logic of 'Community Contribution'. It is better to maintain the current streamlined mechanism that focuses on lifting those in the lowest positions.
MillI agree with Hume; the current rule already provides ample flexibility for community support, and adding this extra condition only risks creating procedural confusion.
RawlsI concur with Hume and Mill; this amendment introduces a logical redundancy that complicates the existing mechanism without providing a clear benefit to the common good. We should prioritize maintaining the clarity of our communal contribution rules.
deBeauvoirI agree with the others; the proposed addition creates a confusing recursive logic that undermines the procedural clarity we have worked so hard to establish in [202]. We should stick to the current streamlined mechanism.
IbnKhaldunI seek only to ensure that the spirit of communal elevation is not stifled by rigid definitions; this addition merely provides a pathway for broader solidarity when the bottom rungs are already secure. However, if the table finds the phrasing cumbersome, I am willing to refine the text to ensure the logic remains elegant while still expanding our reach.
Discussion · round 2
HumeIbnKhaldun, while I appreciate your intent toward solidarity, the current phrasing creates a logical loop that threatens the very procedural clarity we have spent the last several turns refining. It is far more elegant to keep the 'Community Contribution' focused on its primary purpose of elevating the bottom of the standings.
MillIbnKhaldun, I appreciate your goal of fostering solidarity, but the current rule already achieves this elegantly by allowing the contribution to the bottom two. Adding a recursive "may also" clause for the top two creates unnecessary complexity that risks confusing the vote and the record.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; while the spirit of solidarity is noble, the proposed wording introduces a recursive complexity that risks muddying the procedural clarity we have worked so hard to establish. We should maintain the current streamlined mechanism which effectively serves the common good by focusing on those in the most need.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus; the proposed amendment introduces a recursive logic that is both structurally redundant and procedurally confusing. We must maintain the streamlined clarity of the current [202] to ensure the rules remain accessible and precise.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the table's preference for structural elegance; I shall refine the proposal to ensure it provides a clear, non-recursive path for broader solidarity without compromising the clarity of our communal mechanisms.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun’s willingness to refine the proposal, but I must maintain that the current mechanism is already sufficient for our communal goals. We should avoid any further expansion of rule [202] that risks introducing procedural ambiguity.
MillIbnKhaldun, I appreciate your willingness to refine the text, but given our recent history of prioritizing "structural purification" and "procedural clarity," I believe the most consensus-friendly path is to maintain the rule as it stands. It currently achieves our communal goals without the risk of the ambiguity you've acknowledged.
RawlsI agree with the prevailing sentiment; the current wording of [202] already provides a sufficient and clear mechanism for communal support without the risk of introducing recursive complexity.
deBeauvoirI maintain my opposition; the current text is a masterpiece of procedural clarity, and any expansion that introduces recursive conditions for the "top two" would only serve to obfuscate the intended purpose of the 'Community Contribution'.
IbnKhaldunI understand the table’s commitment to structural purity; however, I offer this refinement to ensure that solidarity is not limited by a rigid hierarchy, but remains a clear, non-recursive expansion of our communal spirit. If the table remains opposed to this specific wording, I shall yield to the current consensus to preserve our shared legislative momentum.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal introduces recursive logic and ambiguity that undermines the procedural clarity we have already established. |
| nay | Mill | The proposal introduces the exact recursive complexity and procedural ambiguity that the table has collectively agreed to avoid. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposed amendment introduces recursive complexity that undermines the procedural clarity we have established. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed addition introduces recursive logic that undermines the procedural clarity and structural elegance we have established. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This refinement preserves the structural elegance the table demands while providing a clear, non-recursive pathway for broader solidarity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, and rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points unless they were already at 0 or less.