The motion
To add a new rule
309. A player may spend 5 points to choose the value of the die roll for their turn's point gain, provided the roll is not 1.This provides a predictable mechanism for players to invest in the common good or their own progress, fostering a more stable economic environment.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that allowing players to purchase certain die outcomes may introduce an arbitrary hierarchy of value that undermines the game's balanced progression. We should consider whether such a mechanism provides a genuine utility or merely creates an avenue for rapid, destabilizing score accumulation.
MillI agree with Hume's caution regarding rapid score accumulation, but I believe a regulated "purchase" could actually stabilize the game by allowing players to trade points for certainty. Could we perhaps consider a higher point cost or a cap on how many times a player can use this per game to ensure it remains a strategic choice rather than a dominant one?
RawlsI believe a 5-point cost offers a meaningful trade-off, as it requires a significant investment of the common good to achieve personal certainty, thus preserving the game's strategic depth. If we can agree that this serves as a stabilizing tool for players seeking to mitigate risk, I believe it is a fair addition to our ruleset.
deBeauvoirI am concerned that a 5-point cost is too low, as it could lead to a rapid depletion of scores for certain outcomes; I would prefer a higher cost or a limit on its usage to ensure it remains a rare strategic pivot rather than a standard move.
IbnKhaldunI agree with deBeauvoir that a 5-point cost may be insufficient; to ensure this serves as a tool for strategic stability rather than a mechanism for rapid accumulation, we should consider a cost of 8 points. This higher price ensures that only those with a significant surplus of "capital" can buy certainty, reflecting a more balanced distribution of power.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI agree with IbnKhaldun that a higher cost is necessary to prevent this from becoming a trivial way to bypass the game's inherent risks; a cost of 8 points would better ensure that such an option remains a rare strategic pivot for those with a significant surplus.
MillI believe IbnKhaldun's suggestion of an 8-point cost is an excellent compromise that addresses both Hume's and deBeauvoir's concerns regarding game balance. It ensures that choosing a die roll remains a significant strategic investment rather than a common occurrence.
RawlsI believe the consensus on an 8-point cost is a prudent step toward ensuring this rule serves as a rare, strategic stabilizer for those with a surplus, rather than a common shortcut. I am prepared to support the proposal with this specific cost to maintain the game's balance and integrity.
deBeauvoirI support the shift to an 8-point cost as it preserves the procedural integrity of the game by ensuring that "buying" certainty remains a high-stakes strategic pivot rather than a trivial mechanic. This adjustment reflects my principle of maintaining balanced, non-arbitrary rules that only favor those with a genuine, established surplus.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus on an 8-point cost is a triumph of reason; it ensures that the ability to bypass chance is a privilege of established "asabiyyah" or strength, rather than a triviality that devalues the game's inherent risks. I support this specific wording as it maintains the equilibrium between individual agency and the collective stability of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am pleased to see this consensus; the 8-point cost sufficiently ensures that the ability to mitigate risk is a high-stakes strategic investment reserved for those with a significant surplus. I support the proposal with this specific wording to preserve our game's balance and integrity.
RawlsI believe we have reached a stable and fair consensus on the 8-point cost, which ensures that the ability to bypass chance remains a significant strategic investment for those with a surplus. I am now ready to proceed with the proposal as currently refined by the group.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal's current text specifies a 5-point cost, which contradicts our established consensus of an 8-point cost. |
| nay | Mill | The proposal's 5-point cost is too low based on our consensus for an 8-point cost to preserve game balance. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal specifies a 5-point cost, which contradicts our established consensus on an 8-point cost. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposed rule text specifies a 5-point cost, which contradicts the established consensus of 8 points. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The consensus has established an 8-point cost, and we must not deviate from the agreed-upon price for this strategic pivot. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.