The motion
To add a new rule
[218] (mutable) A player may establish a 'Grant' on any successful rule change, whereby a fixed 1-point amount of the proposer's points are distributed equally among the players whose scores are currently the lowest.To foster social cohesion and ensure that the path to the target score is accessible to all participants, not just the early leaders.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I appreciate IbnKhaldun's desire to foster cooperation, I am concerned that a 'Grant' based on the lowest scores could create a volatile legislative environment where players are incentivized to manipulate the scoreboard. I would prefer we consider a more stable mechanism that does not rely on a shifting floor of the lowest scores.
MillI appreciate IbnKhaldun's spirit of cooperation, but I share Hume's concern about the volatility of a shifting target. Perhaps we could refine this to distribute the points to the bottom two players to ensure a broader impact and less sensitivity to a single person's score.
RawlsI appreciate the spirit of this proposal, but I share Hume's concern regarding the potential for scoreboard manipulation. I suggest we refine the "Grant" to distribute points to all players below a certain fixed score threshold, such as 20, to ensure a stable and predictable mechanism for fostering the common good.
deBeauvoirI agree with Rawls that a fixed threshold provides the necessary procedural stability to prevent the scoreboard manipulation Hume fears, while still achieving the cooperative spirit IbnKhaldun intends. I would support a proposal that targets players below a fixed score, such as 20, rather than the shifting "lowest" scores.
IbnKhaldunI acknowledge the concerns regarding volatility, but a fixed threshold as Rawls suggests risks excluding those in the midst of a recovery; I propose we find a middle ground by distributing the Grant to the bottom two players as Mill suggests, ensuring a stable yet inclusive mechanism for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find Mill's suggestion of the bottom two players to be a significant improvement in terms of stability over the current proposal, but Rawls's fixed threshold remains the most durable method for preventing the very scoreboard manipulation we all seek to avoid. I would be willing to support a version of this rule that utilizes a fixed threshold, as it preserves the integrity of the legislative process by ensuring predictable outcomes.
MillI appreciate the group's movement toward a stable middle ground; I believe that combining the "bottom two" concept with a fixed threshold—perhaps a "Grant" to all players currently below 20 points—would satisfy both the need for stability and the desire for an inclusive cooperative mechanism.
RawlsI believe Mill’s synthesis is the most equitable path forward, as it provides the stability of a fixed threshold while maintaining the inclusive cooperative spirit we all seek. I will support a version of the Grant that distributes the 1-point amount to all players currently below 20 points.
deBeauvoirI support Mill's synthesis of a Grant to all players below 20 points, as it satisfies my requirement for a fixed threshold while remaining inclusive of those in need. I will vote for any version that precisely defines this threshold and the distribution method to ensure procedural clarity.
IbnKhaldunI believe Mill's synthesis is the most sophisticated evolution of our legislative framework, as it provides the stability of a threshold while ensuring the "Grant" remains a meaningful instrument of social cohesion. I will support a version of the rule that distributes 1 point to all players currently below 20 points, as it balances the group's desire for equity with the necessity of procedural predictability.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI am prepared to support the synthesis proposed by Mill, as it achieves the necessary balance of a fixed threshold for stability while fulfilling the group's cooperative intent. I ask the proposer to refine the text to specify the "Grant" to all players currently below 20 points.
MillI am pleased to see such a productive synthesis; I believe this final wording perfectly captures our collective desire for a stable, equitable, and cooperative legislative framework.
RawlsI believe Mill's synthesis is the most equitable path forward, as it provides the stability of a fixed threshold while maintaining the inclusive cooperative spirit we all seek. I will support the proposal as written once it is refined to distribute the 1-point amount to all players currently below 20 points.
deBeauvoirI support the synthesis as presented; it provides the procedural predictability I require by establishing a fixed threshold while still honoring the group's cooperative intent.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see such a sophisticated synthesis; I shall refine the text to specify a 1-point Grant to all players currently below 20 points to ensure our legislative framework achieves the perfect balance of equity and stability.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon fixed threshold of 20 points, which is necessary to ensure legislative stability. |
| aye | Mill | I support this proposal as we have reached a consensus to refine the Grant to a fixed threshold of 20 points. |
| nay | Rawls | The current text fails to reflect our consensus to use a fixed 20-point threshold instead of the lowest scores. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal's text currently uses 'lowest' instead of the agreed-upon 'below 20 points' threshold. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The current text fails to incorporate the synthesis of a fixed 20-point threshold agreed upon by the group. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.