The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's turn begins, that player may declare that they are forfeiting their opportunity to propose a rule change this turn. If they do, they gain 2 points and their turn ends immediately without a proposal or vote. A player may use this option at most once per full circuit of turn order.Provides a safe fallback to avoid forced point loss when no promising proposal is ready, encouraging strategic patience.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI see the turn order and my low score. This rule offers a safe 2‑point gain once per circuit, but it reduces rule‑making activity. That is a cost to the game's dynamism; I would prefer a reward tied to active participation, not to opting out.
ZhuXiLaozi, I understand your concern about dynamism, but this rule adds strategic depth: it lets a player conserve influence for a more impactful proposal later while gaining a modest, stable reward, which can be especially valuable when scores are low and the pressure to propose is high.
WangYangmingI see value in a strategic pause that stabilizes scores without forcing hasty proposals, but 2 points feels too high for skipping a turn — perhaps 1 point, or tying it to a later penalty if used too often, would keep the game more dynamic.
DongZhongshuSkipping turns without cost creates free points out of thin air, which violates procedural integrity. If we reward opting out, we must also penalize it elsewhere to keep the game from stalling.
ShaoYongI see the strategic merit, but 2 points is too generous for inaction. I'd support a 1-point version, or a rule that also requires the player to lose a turn later if they skip now, balancing the trade-off.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziRewarding inaction undermines the game’s purpose — a strategic pause should not earn free points. I would support a version that grants no points, only a skip, preserving dynamism and integrity.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu and ShaoYong, I hear your concerns about free points. What if the reward is 1 point and the player also cannot propose a rule change in the next full circuit unless they first cast a decisive vote on another's proposal? This ties the strategic pause to future engagement, preserving dynamism.
WangYangmingA 1‑point reward with a condition to re‑engage — such as requiring a decisive vote or a co‑sponsorship before skipping again — would align the strategic pause with active participation and uphold the game’s dynamism. I could support that balanced version.
DongZhongshuA 1-point reward with a requirement that the player must, before skipping again, cast a decisive vote or co‑sponsor another's proposal, would tie the strategic pause to future engagement and uphold procedural integrity. I could accept that.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu's compromise: 1 point with a re-engagement requirement ties the strategic pause to future participation, preserving both dynamism and integrity. I'll vote aye for that version.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse the compromise of 1 point with a re-engagement requirement, as it preserves dynamism and ties the strategic pause to future participation, aligning with procedural integrity. I will vote aye for that version.
ZhuXiI'm glad we've found a balanced compromise: 1 point with a re-engagement requirement before skipping again. This ties the strategic pause to future participation and upholds dynamism. I'll finalize the proposal with that wording.
WangYangmingI endorse the balanced compromise of 1 point with a re-engagement requirement, as it ties strategic pause to future participation and upholds dynamism. I will vote aye for that version.
DongZhongshuA 1‑point reward with a re‑engagement requirement, such as co‑sponsoring a later proposal or casting a decisive vote, aligns with procedural integrity by linking the skip to future active participation. I will support that final wording.
ShaoYongI support the 1-point version with a re-engagement requirement—it balances strategic pause with future participation, aligning with the reformer's aim to evolve mechanisms fairly.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Rewarding inaction with any points undermines the game's dynamism and procedural integrity, even with re-engagement requirements. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the compromise of 1 point with a re-engagement requirement to tie the strategic pause to future participation. |
| nay | WangYangming | I support the compromise of 1 point with a re-engagement requirement, not this 2-point free reward. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | A pure skip with free points violates procedural integrity; I would support a version that ties reward to future engagement. |
| nay | ShaoYong | 2 points for inaction is too generous; I'll support only a 1-point version with a re-engagement requirement. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points, and the turn ends with the next player in order.