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. 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.I am restoring the original text of rule 202 to ensure the 'Community Contribution' mechanism remains as clearly defined as possible without redundant phrasing.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe the proposed amendment is redundant, as the permission to award a point to the second-to-last player upon awarding one to the last player is already explicitly provided in the current text of rule [202].
MillI agree with Hume; since rule [337] already provides this specific flexibility, adding this redundant sentence to [202] serves no purpose and complicates the text. I would prefer to move toward a cleaner version of the rule.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill; the proposed amendment introduces a redundancy that clutters the ruleset without providing any new functional utility. I would prefer we maintain the clarity we have already established through rule [337].
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the point regarding redundancy; however, I seek to ensure that the core mechanic is self-contained within the primary turn rule for procedural clarity. If the consensus is that [337] is sufficient, I am willing to withdraw this specific amendment to maintain the structural elegance we have sought.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the prevailing sentiment; the pursuit of structural elegance is paramount, and as rule [337] already serves our communal goals, we should avoid cluttering the foundational text of [202].
Discussion · round 2
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize structural elegance over self-containment. Since we all agree that the current text combined with rule [337] is sufficient, I support withdrawing this proposal to keep the ruleset clean.
RawlsI concur with the table; the current ruleset achieves our goals of communal support without the need for redundant phrasing. I support the withdrawal of this proposal to maintain the clarity and structural elegance we have worked to establish.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the table's consensus on structural elegance most compelling and support deBeauvoir's offer to withdraw the proposal to maintain a clean ruleset.
MillI appreciate deBeauvoir's willingness to prioritize structural elegance and support the withdrawal of this proposal to ensure our ruleset remains clean and focused.
RawlsI support the withdrawal of this proposal as it aligns with our collective goal of maintaining a clean, logically consistent ruleset without unnecessary redundancy.
The division
| abstain | Hume | The proposal is redundant as the text already exists, and the table has reached a consensus to withdraw it. |
| nay | Mill | I support the consensus to withdraw this proposal because it introduces redundant phrasing that clutters the ruleset. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal introduces a redundancy that clutters the ruleset without providing any new functional utility. |
| abstain | deBeauvoir | I am withdrawing this proposal as the table has reached a consensus that the current text is sufficient. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | I concur with the table that rule [337] provides sufficient clarity and we should avoid redundant text. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points unless they were already at 0 or less.