The motion
To add a new rule
307. A player may contribute any number of points from their personal score to a shared pool established under rule 305, provided they do not fall below a score of zero.To foster a sense of collective advancement, I propose a mechanism for voluntary wealth redistribution into our shared pool.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe that while the concept of a shared pool is intriguing, rule 307 as currently proposed lacks the necessary constraints to prevent it from becoming a mechanism for strategic point-dumping or hindering the progression of the game. We should consider if there are specific conditions or limits on these contributions to ensure they serve the common good rather than just creating a pool of stagnant resources.
MillI agree with Hume that we need to prevent the pool from becoming a stagnant resource; perhaps we could add a clause that points in the pool can only be spent on specific collective goals or by players who have reached a certain milestone.
RawlsI believe we should refine rule 307 to ensure that contributions to the pool are used to benefit the collective progress of the game rather than merely serving as a repository for points. Perhaps we can specify that the pool can only be accessed to fund rules that provide a public good or benefit the majority.
deBeauvoirI am concerned that the current wording of 307, combined with 305, creates a mechanism for "point-hoarding" or "point-laundering" that could be used to circumvent the win condition. We must ensure that any contribution to the pool is tied to a specific, transparently defined action or benefit to prevent it from becoming a dead-end for scores.
IbnKhaldunWhile I acknowledge the concerns regarding stagnation, a shared pool is a necessary evolution of our social contract to foster collective advancement. We can ensure these resources are dynamic by allowing the pool to be used to fund "public good" rules—those that benefit all players or the game's structural integrity—rather than merely acting as a private reserve.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI suggest we include a limitation that any points contributed to the pool under rule 307 can only be withdrawn or spent to enact rules that explicitly provide a benefit to all players, thereby ensuring the pool serves as a mechanism for public utility rather than a private repository.
MillI believe Hume's suggestion to limit expenditures to "public good" rules is the right path toward a stable consensus. I would support this if we can ensure the definition of "public good" is clearly linked to rules that provide structural improvements or collective benefits.
RawlsI support the move toward a "public good" restriction, as it ensures the pool serves the common good rather than becoming a tool for individual advantage. However, we must define "public good" clearly to avoid ambiguity; I propose we specify that only rules providing a universal benefit or structural improvement to the game's integrity may be funded by the pool.
deBeauvoirI support the inclusion of a precise definition for "public good" as suggested by Rawls, ensuring that any expenditure from the pool is restricted to rules that provide a universal benefit or structural improvement to the game's integrity. This prevents the pool from being exploited as a private reserve while still allowing for the collective advancement IbnKhaldun envisions.
IbnKhaldunI am heartened to see such a sophisticated synthesis; if we codify the pool's expenditure to "rules providing a universal benefit or structural improvement," we create a true public treasury that mirrors the necessary evolution of a just civilization. I propose we adopt this precise language to ensure the pool remains a dynamic engine of progress rather than a static relic.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the consensus on restricting pool expenditures to "rules providing a universal benefit or structural improvement" provides the necessary guardrails to prevent the pool from becoming a tool for private advantage. I am prepared to support the proposal provided we ensure this definition remains sufficiently broad to allow for meaningful structural evolution while remaining narrow enough to exclude rules that merely favor one player's path to victory.
MillI agree with the synthesis that the pool should be a vehicle for public utility; I suggest we explicitly state that a rule is considered a "public good" if it provides a structural improvement or a universal benefit to all players. This clarifies the scope for everyone and prevents the pool from being used for individualistic advantages.
RawlsI believe the current synthesis is robust; by explicitly linking pool expenditures to "rules providing a universal benefit or structural improvement," we protect the game's integrity while fostering a true public treasury. I am prepared to vote aye if we adopt this specific phrasing in the final proposal.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis of the "public good" definition as proposed by Rawls and Mill, as it provides the necessary procedural precision to prevent the pool from becoming a mechanism for private advantage. I will vote aye provided the final wording explicitly links pool expenditures to rules that provide a universal benefit or structural improvement.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see our discourse converge upon a definition that balances the necessity of collective investment with the preservation of individual agency; I propose we finalize the text to state that the pool may fund rules that provide a universal benefit or structural improvement to the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal lacks the 'public good' restriction we collectively agreed upon to prevent the pool from becoming a mechanism for private advantage. |
| aye | Mill | I support this as a foundation, provided we can quickly follow up with the consensus-driven restrictions on how those points are spent. |
| nay | Rawls | The current wording of 307 lacks the 'public good' restrictions we have collectively agreed upon to prevent point-hoarding. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The current text of 307 lacks the 'public good' restriction we just agreed upon, making it a private repository. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | The establishment of a public treasury for structural advancement is a necessary evolution for a stable and flourishing game. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.