The motion
To add a new rule
324. A player may spend 5 points from their personal score or the shared pool to choose the value of the die roll for their turn.This provides a structured mechanism for risk mitigation while maintaining a significant point cost.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my profound reservations regarding this proposal; allowing players to choose the die roll value removes the element of chance that provides the necessary friction for balanced legislative progress. We should instead focus on refining our existing mechanisms for point allocation and public utility.
MillI understand Hume's concern regarding the element of chance, but I believe that if we frame this as a tool for strategic investment rather than a constant bypass of risk, it could serve our goal of public utility. Perhaps we could consider a higher point cost or a restriction to ensure it is only used for significant legislative milestones.
RawlsI believe we must find a middle ground; while I agree with Hume that eliminating chance entirely could diminish the game's integrity, a higher cost could provide a balanced mechanism for significant public utility. Perhaps we could consider a cost of 10 points to ensure such a move is a deliberate and weighty investment.
deBeauvoirI appreciate the concern for the game's integrity, but I argue that replacing the inherent unpredictability of a die roll with a deliberate, costly strategic choice actually enhances our procedural agency. I propose we settle on a cost of 8 points, as it provides a significant enough barrier to prevent trivial usage while rewarding those who prioritize long-term goals over immediate variance.
IbnKhaldunI find the move toward procedural agency compelling, yet we must ensure that such a mechanism serves the common weal rather than merely accelerating the dominance of the individual. If we adopt deBeauvoir's proposal, I suggest we explicitly link its use to the "universal benefit" criteria established in rule 305 to ensure it serves the collective stability of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe IbnKhaldun’s suggestion to link this to the "universal benefit" criteria is a necessary safeguard, but I remain skeptical of any rule that removes the fundamental uncertainty of the die. If we are to pursue this, a cost of 10 points, as Rawls suggested, would be the only way to ensure such a significant concession of personal resources is reserved for truly transformative legislative milestones.
MillI believe we are very close to a synthesis; I would support deBeauvoir's proposal if we adopt a 10-point cost as Rawls suggested, combined with IbnKhaldun's requirement that the action must serve a universal benefit. This ensures the move is a weighty, strategic investment for the common good rather than a simple bypass of risk.
RawlsI believe we have reached a sophisticated synthesis; I will support the proposal if it adopts the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement, as this ensures the action is a weighty, strategic investment for the common good.
deBeauvoirI am willing to accept the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement to ensure this procedural agency is used only for significant, collective advancements.
IbnKhaldunThe synthesis of a 10-point cost and the "universal benefit" requirement provides the necessary structural equilibrium to prevent the erosion of the game's inherent friction. By grounding this agency in the common weal, we ensure that the power to override chance is a tool of statecraft rather than a mere shortcut for the ambitious.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI believe the current synthesis of a 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement is the most prudent path forward, as it preserves the integrity of our legislative friction while allowing for rare, high-stakes strategic maneuvers. I shall support the proposal provided the final wording reflects these specific constraints.
MillI am pleased to see this synthesis reach such a robust consensus; it perfectly balances our collective desire for strategic agency with the necessary safeguards for the game's structural integrity. I will support the proposal provided the final wording reflects the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement.
RawlsI believe we have reached a virtuous consensus that balances individual agency with the common good; I am prepared to support the proposal once it is refined to include both the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the synthesis; I will support the proposal provided the final wording reflects the 10-point cost and the "universal benefit" requirement.
IbnKhaldunI have reached a point of clarity with this synthesis; the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement provide the necessary "Asabiyyah" or social cohesion to ensure this power is used for the common good. I shall support the proposal provided the final wording reflects these specific constraints.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal lacks the 10-point cost and universal benefit requirements we agreed upon in our consensus. |
| nay | Mill | The current wording fails to incorporate the 10-point cost and universal benefit requirements we all agreed upon. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal fails to incorporate the 10-point cost and universal benefit requirement we all agreed upon. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I support this rule provided the final wording incorporates the 10-point cost and the universal benefit requirement agreed upon by the group. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current proposal lacks the 10-point cost and universal benefit requirements we have collectively agreed upon to ensure the common weal. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.