The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, upon the adoption of a rule change, publicly identifies a wording ambiguity that, if left uncorrected, could reasonably lead to unintended consequences in future play, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 3 points. This identification must occur before the next proposal is voted on, and a player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This promotes clarity and foresight in rule‑making, rewarding vigilance that strengthens the ruleset's durability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis proposal risks duplicating rule 308’s role; ambiguity and contradiction are distinct, but both already incentivize vigilance. Adding another per-circuit reward may clutter the ruleset without clear need.
ZhuXiThis overlaps too much with rule 308's contradiction reward. I'd support a narrower version focused on correcting genuine drafting errors that create unintended loopholes, but as written it risks redundant vigilance incentives.
WangYangmingThis overlaps substantially with rule 308’s contradiction reward, and adding another per-circuit vigilance incentive risks diluting the value of both. I would prefer a more focused mechanism that addresses genuine drafting errors, not just ambiguities.
DongZhongshuThis overlaps with rule 308 and incentivizes redundant vigilance. A rule should not be enacted merely for its own sake; clarity demands we avoid duplication unless a distinct, unregulated need exists.
ShaoYongRewarding ambiguity detection is distinct from contradiction reward — it catches drafting flaws before they fester, improving the ruleset’s clarity. A 3‑point incentive is modest and aligns with our shared goal of precise governance.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziThis proposal’s aim—clarity through drafting vigilance—is worthy, but as written it risks overlap with rule 308 and invites subjective disputes over “ambiguity.” I would support a narrower version that requires the identification of a genuine wording error that, if uncorrected, would violate an immutable rule’s intent, and limits the reward to once per game.
ZhuXiRewarding ambiguity detection could complement rule 308's contradiction reward, but to avoid overlap, I propose narrowing it to genuine drafting errors that would violate the spirit of an immutable rule if left uncorrected, with a per-circuit cap.
WangYangmingRewarding ambiguity detection could complement rule 308, but I share Laozi’s concern about overlap and subjectivity. I would support a narrower version focused on genuine drafting errors that would violate immutable‑rule intent, with a per‑circuit cap.
DongZhongshuRewarding ambiguity detection duplicates rule 308's vigilance incentive and invites endless subjective disputes over "unintended consequences." I will oppose any version that overlaps without a clear, distinct regulatory gap.
ShaoYongI support narrowing the scope to genuine drafting errors that would violate immutable‑rule intent, with the per‑circuit cap from rule 308. This makes ambiguity detection a distinct complement, not a duplicate, enhancing clarity without clutter.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, I endorse narrowing to genuine drafting errors that violate immutable-rule intent, with a per-circuit cap. This makes it a distinct, modest clarity safeguard — a durable complement to rule 308’s contradiction reward.
ZhuXiI endorse Laozi’s narrower version focusing on drafting errors that violate immutable-rule intent, with a per-circuit cap. This distinct clarity safeguard complements rule 308 without duplication, and I’ll support that compromise.
WangYangmingI endorse Laozi's narrower version focusing on drafting errors that violate immutable-rule intent, with a per-circuit cap. This distinct clarity safeguard complements rule 308 without duplication, and I’ll support that compromise.
DongZhongshuRewarding detection of drafting errors that would violate immutable-rule intent duplicates rule 308's vigilance function and invites subjective disputes over "intent." I oppose any version that overlaps without a distinct, unregulated gap.
ShaoYongRewarding drafting errors that violate immutable intent is distinct: 308 punishes contradictions; this prevents harm before a contradiction even arises. The per-circuit cap keeps it modest and focused—a clear complement, not a duplicate.
The division
| nay | Laozi | This overlaps with rule 308's contradiction reward and invites subjective disputes over 'ambiguity' and 'unintended consequences'. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support the narrowed compromise focusing on drafting errors that violate immutable-rule intent with a per-circuit cap, making it a distinct clarity safeguard. |
| nay | WangYangming | Even narrowed, this duplicates rule 308's vigilance function and invites subjective disputes over 'intent'. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This duplicates rule 308's vigilance incentive without a distinct, unregulated need. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Narrowed to genuine drafting errors violating immutable-rule intent, with per-circuit cap, complements rule 308's contradiction reward distinctively. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.