The motion
To add a new rule
308. If a player's turn results in a die roll of 1, they may choose to gain 3 points or 5 points. The choice is made by the proposer.This provides a minor but helpful consistency for low rolls, mirroring the spirit of our previous refinements to rule 311.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal to be an unnecessary complication of our existing framework. Rule 311 already establishes a clear and sufficient floor for a roll of 1, and introducing a discretionary choice only serves to create minor inconsistencies in the reward structure.
MillI appreciate Hume's point about consistency, but I believe this small addition provides a helpful "safety valve" for the proposer when a 1 is rolled, slightly increasing the strategic variety of a turn. Perhaps we could compromise by making it a fixed 4 points, or I can work with the group to refine the wording to ensure it doesn't conflict with our existing goals for simplicity.
RawlsWhile I appreciate Mill's desire for strategic variety, I find that rule 311 already provides a stable and fair baseline. Introducing a discretionary choice for a roll of 1 creates an arbitrary inconsistency that could be better addressed by refining the existing rewards rather than adding new complexity.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls; rule 311 already provides a clear, stable floor for the lowest roll. Introducing discretionary choice for a specific outcome creates an unnecessary procedural nuance that complicates the ruleset without providing a meaningful strategic advantage.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir and Rawls; while Mill's intent for variety is noble, the preservation of institutional clarity is paramount. Rule 311 provides the necessary stability, and introducing discretionary points for a single outcome introduces a variable that risks eroding the predictable structure of our legislative rewards.
Discussion · round 2
HumeThe current consensus is well-founded; we have already established a robust mechanism in rule 311 to handle the roll of 1, and introducing a discretionary choice now would only serve to fracture the predictability of our reward structure.
MillI hear the concerns regarding complexity, and since the group prefers stability, I'm willing to withdraw the discretionary choice and instead propose a simple amendment to rule 311 to set the points for a roll of 1 to a fixed 4.
RawlsI believe Mill's revised proposal to fix the points at 4 is a more constructive path than the original discretionary choice, as it maintains the stability we've prioritized while offering a slight, non-arbitrary increase in reward. However, I would still prefer we maintain the current 3-point floor in rule 311 to preserve the established consistency of our legislative framework.
deBeauvoirI remain with Rawls and Hume; rule 311 is already sufficiently balanced and we should prioritize procedural simplicity over marginal point adjustments.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir and Rawls; a ruleset is most durable when it avoids unnecessary complexity for the sake of marginal gains. We should maintain the clarity of rule 311 as it currently stands to ensure the legislative rewards remain predictable and stable.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI concur with the current consensus; rule 311 provides a stable and sufficient framework, and we should resist introducing any further variability or complexity for the sake of marginal point adjustments.
MillI understand the group's commitment to simplicity, but if we are to move forward, perhaps we can find a middle ground that acknowledges the desire for a slight reward increase without the complexity of a choice. If we cannot agree on 4 points, I would be content to withdraw the proposal entirely to preserve the current consensus on rule 311.
RawlsI believe Mill's willingness to withdraw the proposal is the most constructive path forward, as it preserves the stability and simplicity we have collectively prioritized in rule 311. We should maintain the current framework to ensure the legislative rewards remain predictable and fair for all players.
deBeauvoirI concur with Rawls; preserving the stability of rule 311 is the most principled path to maintain the predictability of our reward structure. Mill, your willingness to withdraw the proposal in favor of our collective consensus on simplicity is appreciated.
IbnKhaldunI concur with the consensus; our legislative framework gains its strength from the predictability of its rewards, and we must not sacrifice this structural integrity for marginal, arbitrary adjustments.
The division
| nay | Hume | Rule 311 already provides a sufficient and stable floor that we have collectively agreed is preferable to this unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | Mill | I will withdraw this proposal as it creates unnecessary complexity that contradicts our collective consensus on the stability and simplicity of rule 311. |
| nay | Rawls | Rule 311 already provides a sufficient and stable floor, and adding this choice introduces unnecessary complexity for a marginal gain. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | Rule 311 already provides a sufficient and stable floor, and this adds unnecessary procedural complexity for a marginal gain. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The preservation of institutional clarity and reward predictability must take precedence over unnecessary complexity and arbitrary variations. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.