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. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. A player may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place and a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in second to last place, even if they have no points remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.Ensuring the community contribution remains a viable mechanism for the lowest-scoring players regardless of the proposer's remaining points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate the spirit of altruism in deBeauvoir's proposal, I am concerned that removing the point requirement for Community Contributions could lead to a "point-less" cycle of redistribution that lacks a meaningful cost to the proposer. I would prefer to maintain the current balance unless we can ensure this doesn't undermine the strategic weight of the die roll.
MillI appreciate the goal of fostering communal support, but I agree with Hume that we must be careful not to decouple the contribution from the proposer's actual success. Perhaps we could consider a compromise where the contribution is still possible without points, but only if the proposer actually gained points from their die roll during that turn.
RawlsI am concerned that deBeauvoir's proposal allows for "Community Contributions" to be awarded without any personal stake, potentially turning the mechanism into a way to inflate scores without the proposer's own success. I believe we should seek a middle ground that ensures these contributions remain a meaningful act of cooperation rather than a purely arbitrary redistribution.
deBeauvoirThe current point requirement is a procedural friction that doesn't actually prevent altruism; it only complicates the math of a move that is already intended to be communal. By decoupling the contribution from my remaining balance, we ensure that the "Community Contribution" remains a constant, reliable mechanism for social cohesion regardless of the die's outcome.
IbnKhaldunThe current requirement creates a logical paradox where one cannot perform a communal act of solidarity simply because they have already been too generous; we must decouple the "Community Contribution" from the proposer's personal balance to ensure it remains a constant social good. I propose we view this not as an inflation of scores, but as the establishment of a social safety net that persists even in turns of low personal gain.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find IbnKhaldun's framing of a "social safety net" compelling, but we must ensure that the ability to distribute points regardless of personal gain does not trivialize the primary incentive of the ruleset. If a player can grant points while possessing none, the contribution becomes a purely symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful strategic choice.
MillI think IbnKhaldun’s "social safety net" framing provides an excellent middle ground; if we can agree that the contribution remains a symbolic act of solidarity rather than a strategic redistribution, I would be willing to support the change to ensure the community mechanism is never disabled by a low die roll.
RawlsI believe IbnKhaldun's "social safety net" framing is the most compelling way to view this; if we can agree that this is a symbolic act of solidarity rather than a strategic redistribution, I would be willing to support the change to ensure the community mechanism is never disabled by a low die roll.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the pivot toward the "social safety net" framing, as it clarifies that the Community Contribution is a stable procedural constant rather than a variable strategic choice. I am prepared to support this amendment because it ensures the communal mechanism remains functional regardless of the die's outcome, fulfilling its intended purpose of social cohesion.
IbnKhaldunI have already articulated my position, but I shall reiterate: by decoupling the contribution from one's personal balance, we transform a variable strategic burden into a constant social duty. I support deBeauvoir's amendment as it ensures the social safety net remains intact regardless of the caprice of the die.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the "social safety net" framing quite persuasive as a way to stabilize the community mechanism; if we accept the contribution as a symbolic duty rather than a strategic expenditure, I am prepared to support the amendment.
MillI appreciate the consensus on the "social safety net" framing; since we all agree this transforms the contribution into a stable procedural constant, I am happy to support deBeauvoir's proposal.
RawlsI believe the "social safety net" framing provides the necessary moral and practical justification; by viewing this as a stable procedural constant, we ensure that communal solidarity is never contingent upon a player's personal fortune.
The division
| aye | Hume | I accept the 'social safety net' framing as a means to preserve the communal mechanism as a stable procedural constant. |
| aye | Mill | I support this as a consensus-driven move that establishes the 'social safety net' we all agreed upon. |
| aye | Rawls | The 'social safety net' framing correctly balances communal solidarity with the game's structural integrity. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment correctly formalizes the 'social safety net' consensus by removing procedural friction from the communal contribution mechanism. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | The 'social safety net' ensures that the duty of communal solidarity remains a constant procedural good regardless of individual fortune. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 55 · Proposal §355 on the motion of deBeauvoir Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
[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. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.[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. A player may only award 'Community Contribution' points if they have at least one point remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll. A player may also choose to award a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in last place and a 'Community Contribution' of one point to the player currently in second to last place, even if they have no points remaining after awarding any optional points from their die roll.
The proposal was adopted, but no rules in the current ruleset mandate a score change upon the adoption of a rule change.