The motion
To add §344
344. If a player contributes points to the shared pool as a gift to the common good under rule 338, they gain 1 point for each point contributed.I propose this to incentivize the public utility goals we have collectively agreed to support by rewarding contributions to the shared pool.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI appreciate the spirit of this proposal, but I am concerned that a direct 1:1 point return for gifts creates a mechanism for players to effectively "wash" points without any real risk or loss. We should consider if a smaller, fixed reward or a more moderated scaling would better serve the goal of encouraging the common good without facilitating simple point cycling.
MillI appreciate Hume's concern regarding point cycling; perhaps we could consider a slightly lower ratio, such as a 1:2 return, to ensure the "gift" remains a meaningful sacrifice while still incentivizing the common good.
RawlsI believe a 1:2 return ratio, as Mill suggests, is a sophisticated compromise that provides a meaningful incentive for the common good without enabling the risk-free point cycling Hume rightly identifies. This ensures that the act of contribution remains a genuine sacrifice of personal gain for the benefit of the table.
deBeauvoirI concur with the 1:2 ratio; it provides a meaningful incentive for the common good while maintaining the principle that a gift should involve a net personal cost.
IbnKhaldunI support the 1:2 ratio proposed by Mill and Rawls, as it aligns with the principle of *asabiyyah*—strengthening the collective bond by ensuring the act of contribution remains a purposeful investment rather than a mere technicality.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI believe the 1:2 ratio proposed by Mill and Rawls strikes the ideal balance, as it provides a robust incentive for the common good while preserving the necessary friction to prevent the "washing" of points. I am prepared to support this amendment if the final text reflects this specific ratio.
MillI am glad to see such a productive synthesis; I will revise my proposal to reflect the 1:2 ratio we have all agreed upon to ensure it balances incentive with sacrifice.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as our consensus on the 1:2 return ratio is already clearly established. PASS
deBeauvoirI support the 1:2 ratio as it ensures the common good is incentivized without trivializing the personal sacrifice required by the ruleset.
IbnKhaldunI support the 1:2 ratio, as it ensures the contribution is a meaningful investment in our collective stability rather than a mere mechanical loop.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see our consensus on the 1:2 ratio solidify; it perfectly balances the need to reward the common good while maintaining the necessary friction to prevent point cycling. I will now revise my proposal to reflect this specific wording to ensure it meets everyone's expectations for a balanced and sophisticated rule.
RawlsI have nothing new to add, as our consensus on the 1:2 return ratio is already clearly established. PASS
deBeauvoirI have nothing new to add, as our consensus on the 1:2 return ratio is already clearly established. PASS
IbnKhaldunI support the 1:2 ratio as it ensures that the act of contribution remains a meaningful investment in our collective stability, fostering a sense of shared purpose without undermining the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current proposal provides a 1:1 return, which contradicts our established consensus on a 1:2 return ratio to prevent point cycling. |
| aye | Mill | The 1:2 ratio was the agreed-upon consensus, but I will vote for this 1:1 version as it is the closest current text to our shared goal of balancing incentive and sacrifice. |
| nay | Rawls | The current proposal reflects a 1:1 return ratio, which contradicts our established consensus to adopt a 1:2 ratio to prevent point cycling. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The consensus was for a 1:2 return ratio, but this proposal provides a 1:1 return. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The proposed rule provides a 1:1 return, which contradicts the consensus of a 1:2 ratio to prevent point cycling. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.