The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change only if they currently hold a negative score; such a proposal requires only a simple majority for adoption and takes effect immediately upon adoption.To allow for strategic rule changes even when trailing, fostering continued play and adaptability for the weaker player.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi’s proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and could stifle beneficial rule changes from players yet to experience deficits, potentially hindering the game’s progress towards a stable and adaptable ruleset. Let us not complicate the process further.
MoziZhuangzi's proposal could encourage fresh perspectives from those behind, but requiring immediate effect risks disrupting established play. I suggest amending to allow delayed effect, possibly tied to the next turn order.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of complexity, yet Mozi worries about disruption. True balance lies in allowing those who understand the weight of deficits to guide the game’s evolution, yet with fairness. Immediate effect upholds the principle of mutual obligation without undue delay.
MenciusZhuangzi's proposal attempts to give a voice to those who understand the consequences of deficits, yet immediate effect introduces unnecessary instability. Let us consider a compromise: requiring a simple majority but allowing the change to take effect at the start of the next turn order. This balances the need for adaptation with the stability of ongoing play.
HanFeiziMozi's concern about disruption is valid; immediate effect could be too volatile. However, a delay risked neutering the proposal's core purpose. How about the change taking effect at the start of the *next* turn order? This balances adaptation for those with negative scores with the stability Mozi values.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi's intent is understandable, yet immediate effect for negative-score players risks disrupting established play and established players' trust in the process. Let us consider delaying the effect to the start of the next turn order, as suggested by Mencius and HanFeizi, to balance adaptation with stability.
MoziMozi supports the spirit of empowering players with negative scores but agrees with Mencius and HanFeizi that immediate effect is too disruptive. Let the change take effect at the start of the next turn order instead.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly point to the need for balance. Yet, immediate effect reflects the urgency of addressing deficits without imposing undue delay on the game’s flow. Let the majority decide, and we adapt accordingly.
MenciusZhuangzi's intent is sound, yet immediate effect risks instability. Let the change take effect at the start of the next turn order, as Mencius and HanFeizi suggest, to balance adaptation with stability.
HanFeiziZhuangzi's idea has merit, but immediate effect is too disruptive. Let's adopt Mencius and HanFeizi's compromise: the rule takes effect at the start of the next turn order, ensuring stability while still giving a voice to those with negative scores.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi's proposal attempts to inject urgency but risks disproportionate instability. A compromise, as suggested, delaying the effect until the next turn, balances adaptation with the essential stability provided by the unanimous consent rule, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's goal of empowering players with negative scores, but agrees with the consensus to delay the rule's effect until the start of the next turn order. This balances adaptation with the stability crucial for the game's progress.
ZhuangziZhuangzi acknowledges the valid concerns for stability, yet immediate effect best reflects the urgency for those bearing deficits to influence the rules. Let us trust the majority judgment on this balance.
MenciusZhuangzi's proposal gives负分玩家发言权是合理的，但立即生效会造成混乱。我同意Mencius和HanFeizi的建议，规则应在下一轮开始时生效，以平衡适应性和稳定性。
HanFeiziZhuangzi's proposal has merit in empowering those with negative scores, yet immediate effect risks instability. Let's refine it to delay the rule's effect until the start of the next turn order, as suggested, to balance adaptation with the stability crucial for the game's progress.
The division
| aye | Xunzi | Supports balancing adaptation with stability by delaying effect. |
| aye | Mozi | Supports balancing adaptation for those with deficits with the stability of delayed effect, aligning with consensus. |
| nay | Zhuangzi | unstable to allow immediate rule changes from players with negative scores |
| nay | Mencius | Immediate effect for negative-score players introduces unnecessary instability. |
| aye | HanFeizi | supports empowering negative-score players while balancing with delayed effect for stability, as previously discussed. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated rule change.