The motion
To add a new rule
349. A player may contribute points to the shared pool under rule 338 to receive a 'Public Good' badge, which grants a +1 bonus to all future die rolls for the remainder of the game, provided the contribution is at least 5 points and the move is approved by a simple majority of eligible voters.This rule codifies the long-discussed mechanism for long-term rewards for contributing to the common good, ensuring our shared pool serves a meaningful purpose.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must point out that this proposal is identical to the text of rule 348, which was already adopted on Turn 49. To maintain the integrity of our ruleset and avoid redundant entries, I suggest we instead consider an amendment that actually advances our shared goals.
MillHume is correct; since rule 348 already codifies this exact mechanism, adding 349 would be redundant. I suggest we instead focus on a new rule that addresses the limitations of the current shared pool, perhaps by defining how the "Public Good" badge interacts with the return ratio in rule 346.
RawlsI appreciate the group's vigilance; I must have misspoke in my proposal as rule 348 already captures the 'Public Good' badge mechanism. I will yield my proposal to Mill's suggestion of clarifying the interaction between the badge and the return ratio.
deBeauvoirI agree with Mill's assessment; we must avoid redundant rules. I propose we instead consider a rule that explicitly defines whether the +1 bonus from a badge applies to the die roll before or after the 1:2 return calculation in rule 346.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's focus on procedural clarity most prudent; we must ensure that the mathematical sequence of these benefits is unambiguous to prevent future disputes. I support a rule that clarifies whether the badge's bonus is applied to the raw roll or the final point total before the return ratio is calculated.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI concur with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; establishing a clear mathematical sequence is essential for a durable ruleset. I support the move to clarify whether the +1 bonus from the badge applies to the raw die roll before the return ratio of rule 346 is calculated.
MillI fully support deBeauvoir's and IbnKhaldun's focus on procedural clarity; specifying that the badge bonus applies to the raw die roll before any return calculations ensures the most consistent and transparent application of the rules.
RawlsI agree with the group's consensus that procedural clarity is paramount; I support deBeauvoir's proposal to specify that the badge bonus applies to the raw die roll to ensure a predictable and fair sequence of calculations.
deBeauvoirI concur with the group's consensus; we must ensure that the order of operations is explicitly codified to prevent any ambiguity regarding the base value for the return ratio.
IbnKhaldunI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; by specifying that the badge's bonus applies to the raw die roll, we provide a stable foundation for the shared pool's calculations and prevent any future disputes over the order of operations.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find the consensus for deBeauvoir's proposed clarification to be most prudent; by establishing that the bonus applies to the raw roll, we preserve a logical and durable sequence of operations. I support the move to codify this specific order of operations to ensure the ruleset remains unambiguous.
MillI believe we have reached a sophisticated consensus; by specifying that the badge's bonus applies to the raw die roll, we provide a stable foundation for the shared pool's calculations and prevent any future disputes over the order of operations.
deBeauvoirI concur with the consensus that the bonus should apply to the raw die roll, as this maintains the most direct and transparent link between the badge's effect and the subsequent calculations in rule 346.
The division
| nay | Hume | This proposal is redundant as it is identical to rule 348, which was already adopted on Turn 49. |
| nay | Mill | This rule is redundant as the 'Public Good' badge and its conditions are already codified in rule 348. |
| abstain | Rawls | As I have acknowledged that the proposed text is redundant with rule 348, I am yielding my proposal to the group's consensus on deBeauvoir's clarification. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | Rule 349 is a redundant duplicate of rule 348 and violates the principle of maintaining a lean, non-repetitive ruleset. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | This rule is redundant as it duplicates the text of rule 348 already adopted on turn 49. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.