Simple past tense sentence describing assignment of duty.
With many monks and little porridge, every mealtime became a chaotic scramble. As they rushed forward, the meager amount of porridge was often spilled, leaving everyone hungry.
The monks appointed an elder to distribute the porridge. However, the distributor held absolute power. To secure larger portions, some monks began to flatter him, and due to existing personal relationships, the porridge was distributed unfairly—some received plenty, while others received very little.
Desperate with hunger, the monks proposed a rotation system for distribution. This only made things worse: when it was someone's turn to distribute, they would gorge themselves, leaving themselves starving when it was someone else's turn.
When the Abbot returned from his travels, he decided that one monk would be solely responsible for distributing the porridge, and no one was allowed to object. However, he also stipulated that the distributor must take their portion last. From then on, the monks were able to eat their hot porridge equally.
This story teaches us at least three lessons: ① Everything must be regulated by systems and mechanisms; ② Systems must constantly innovate and keep pace with the times; ③ A good mechanism is not necessarily a complex one, and a complex mechanism is not necessarily a good one.
僧多粥少，每到开饭时，僧人们便会一拥而上，原本就寥寥无几的粥往往会被挤翻，导致大家只能挨饿。
僧人们推荐了一位长者来负责分粥。然而，分粥者权力过大，为了能多拿一些粥，一些僧人开始对他溜须拍马；再加上平日里关系疏密有别，分粥者便将粥分得厚此薄彼，分配极不公平。
忍饥挨饿的僧人们提议轮流分粥。可这种做法却适得其反：轮到某人分粥时便贪多吃撑，轮到他人分粥时自己又饿得头晕眼花。
方丈云游归来，决定由一名僧人全权负责分粥，且不许他人异议，但同时规定分粥者必须在最后取粥。从此，僧人们终于都能公平地喝到热粥了。
这个故事告诉我们至少三个道理：①凡事都必须有制度和机制来规范；②制度必须不断创新，与时俱进；③好的机制未必复杂，而复杂的机制未必好用。