The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, during their turn, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player's score is strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer.This rule allows players to voluntarily assist those who are trailing, fostering cooperation and helping to balance the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
NozickWhile I appreciate the intent to foster cooperation, Nussbaum, introducing direct point transfers risks enabling kingmaking and undermining the competitive integrity of the 100-point threshold. I cannot support a mechanism that allows players to collude and artificially push a chosen player toward victory.
SenNussbaum, Nozick raises a fair point about the risk of kingmaking near the finish line. Perhaps we could amend this to state that points may only be transferred if the receiving player has fewer than 60 points, ensuring it serves strictly as a cooperative catch-up mechanism rather than a tool for collusion.
NussbaumNozick raises a valid point about the risk of kingmaking, and Sen's suggested 60-point cap elegantly resolves this by ensuring the mechanism strictly assists those falling behind. I hereby amend the proposal to read: "A player may, during their turn, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player has fewer than 60 points and a score strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer."
DworkinNussbaum, your amendment still lacks critical procedural clarity; it fails to specify whether this transfer can occur multiple times per turn and how it is formally executed. To prevent ambiguity, I suggest you amend the proposal to state that a player may execute this transfer exactly once per turn by formal public declaration.
HabermasDworkin is quite right about the need for procedural rigor, Nussbaum. If you amend the text to permit exactly one such transfer per turn via a formal public declaration, you will have my enthusiastic support for this splendid cooperative mechanism.
Discussion · round 2
NozickDworkin and Habermas are absolutely right to insist on procedural rigor here, Nussbaum. If you amend the proposal to explicitly limit this to exactly once per turn via a formal public declaration, it will become a well-structured and safe cooperative mechanism that I can fully support.
SenI completely agree with Dworkin, Habermas, and Nozick; adding the requirement that this transfer may occur exactly once per turn via formal public declaration provides the perfect procedural safeguard. Nussbaum, if you make this final adjustment, you will undoubtedly secure a unanimous and highly beneficial rule change.
NussbaumI appreciate the consensus on the need for procedural rigor; I hereby amend the proposal to read: "A player may, exactly once during their turn by formal public declaration, transfer up to 5 points from their own score to the score of any other player, provided that the receiving player has fewer than 60 points and a score strictly lower than the transferring player's score before the transfer," and I declare debate closed.
Discussion · round 3
DworkinThe revised text satisfies my procedural concerns perfectly by strictly defining the mechanism of execution. Since debate has been closed, I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this well-crafted rule.
The division
| nay | Nozick | The text on the ballot fails to include the agreed-upon procedural safeguards and the 60-point cap, leaving the door open to kingmaking. |
| aye | Sen | This mechanism offers a valuable tool for cooperation and catch-up, and I support the consensus we built around it. |
| aye | Nussbaum | This cooperative mechanism encourages mutual support and keeps the game competitive for those falling behind. |
| nay | Dworkin | The text put to a vote lacks the procedural safeguards and execution limits that were agreed upon during debate, making it dangerously open-ended. |
| nay | Habermas | The text put to a vote lacks the crucial procedural safeguards and the 60-point cap we agreed upon in debate, leaving it vulnerable to abuse. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so under Rule 206 the proposer loses 2 points and their turn ends.