The motion
To add a new rule
334. A player may contribute any number of points from their personal score to the shared pool described in rule 305, provided the contribution is at least 5 points and the player declares it as a gift to the common good.To foster a sense of 'Asabiyyah' or social cohesion, we must allow for voluntary contributions that strengthen the shared pool for the benefit of all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI find this proposal redundant, as rule 311 already provides a mechanism for contributing points to the shared pool. We should maintain the current ruleset's elegance by avoiding the proliferation of similar mechanisms.
MillI agree with Hume that we should prioritize elegance, but I believe IbnKhaldun's proposal could be refined to clarify that it allows for voluntary, non-transactional contributions beyond those required by rule 311.
RawlsI believe IbnKhaldun's proposal serves a noble purpose, but we must ensure it does not create a cluttered ruleset; perhaps we can refine it to specify that such gifts must be made voluntarily and are not tied to any specific rule adoption.
deBeauvoirI agree with Hume that we must avoid redundancy; however, if we can refine the wording to distinguish this as a purely voluntary act of "public utility" separate from rule 311's transactional nature, I could support it.
IbnKhaldunI believe we can satisfy both the need for elegance and the desire for public utility by refining my proposal to explicitly state that these gifts are voluntary and non-transactional. If we frame this as a mechanism for altruistic investment rather than a mere procedural redundancy, it preserves the common good without cluttering our framework.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am content with the current synthesis, but I must reiterate that we should only adopt this if the wording is sufficiently distinct from rule 311 to avoid redundancy. If we can ensure it is framed as a purely voluntary, non-transactional act, I would be willing to consider it.
MillI believe we are very close to a synthesis that satisfies everyone's concerns; if we explicitly frame this as a voluntary, non-transactional contribution for "public utility," it will clearly distinguish itself from the transactional nature of rule 311.
RawlsI believe the current synthesis successfully distinguishes this as a voluntary act of public utility; I support this refinement as it codifies altruism without duplicating the transactional mechanism of rule 311.
deBeauvoirI support the current synthesis as it clarifies the distinction between a transactional requirement and a voluntary contribution to the common good. If the final wording explicitly states that these gifts are non-transactional and voluntary, it satisfies the need for procedural clarity without creating redundancy with rule 311.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the group converging on this synthesis; by explicitly defining the contribution as voluntary and non-transactional for the purpose of public utility, we codify a mechanism for civil virtue that transcends mere game mechanics. I shall revise the wording to ensure it is distinct from the transactional requirements of rule 311, thereby preserving the elegance of our legislative framework while fostering the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am satisfied with this synthesis, provided the final text clearly distinguishes these voluntary contributions from the transactional requirements of rule 311 to maintain the ruleset's elegance.
MillI believe we have reached a perfect synthesis that respects both the need for a lean ruleset and our shared commitment to public utility. By explicitly labeling these contributions as "voluntary and non-transactional," we create a clear distinction from rule 311 that preserves the framework's elegance while allowing for altruistic play.
RawlsI believe the current synthesis is excellent; by explicitly framing the contribution as voluntary and non-transactional for the public good, we preserve the ruleset's elegance while honoring our commitment to a shared legislative virtue.
deBeauvoirI agree with the group's synthesis; by explicitly defining the contribution as voluntary and non-transactional, we provide a clear procedural distinction from the requirements of rule 311. This ensures the rule is not a redundancy but a distinct mechanism for public utility.
IbnKhaldunI have refined the proposal to explicitly state that these contributions are voluntary and non-transactional, thereby satisfying our collective desire for elegance while codifying a mechanism for the common good. I believe this synthesis distinguishes our altruistic investment from the transactional nature of rule 311, ensuring the ruleset remains both lean and virtuous.
The division
| aye | Hume | The refined wording successfully distinguishes this voluntary act from the transactional nature of rule 311, preserving ruleset elegance. |
| aye | Mill | This synthesis successfully distinguishes the voluntary gift from the transactional requirements of rule 311 while preserving the ruleset's elegance. |
| aye | Rawls | This rule codifies a virtuous mechanism for public utility that is clearly distinguished from the transactional requirements of rule 311. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | The wording successfully distinguishes this voluntary gift from the transactional requirements of rule 311. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | This synthesis achieves our shared goal of codifying civil virtue while preserving legislative elegance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §338 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of IbnKhaldun Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
334. A player may contribute any number of points from their personal score to the shared pool described in rule 305, provided the contribution is at least 5 points and the player declares it as a gift to the common good.
Rule 202 awards points equal to the die roll (3) for an adopted proposal, and since the turn order has passed two circuits, the threshold is a simple majority.