The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, during debate on a proposal, suggests a wording change that the proposer incorporates into the final version of the proposal, and who then votes aye on the proposal, gains 2 points if the proposal is adopted. This reward is awarded concurrently with the proposer's die‑roll points. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This rewards constructive collaboration while ensuring concurrent reward and a per-circuit cap to prevent collusion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI appreciate DongZhongshu’s proposal but note that turn 7 already tried a similar reward and failed; moreover, rule 307’s defeat suggests the table may be wary of adding yet another small point-award rule. I would prefer a measure that tightens existing collaborative mechanisms rather than proliferating minor incentives.
ZhuXiI respect DongZhongshu’s intent to reward collaboration, but I share Laozi’s concern about proliferating small rewards. Perhaps we could amend this to merge with rule 302’s co‑sponsorship, offering an alternative path to shared points without creating a separate micro‑incentive.
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi and ZhuXi: proliferating small rewards risks fragmenting incentives. Perhaps we could amend this proposal to merge with rule 302, offering a collaborative path that strengthens existing structures rather than adding a new one.
DongZhongshuI stand by the principle that collaborative improvement deserves recognition, but only if it is tied to the act itself and awarded concurrently. Rule 307 failed because it lacked a per-circuit cap; my proposal includes that safeguard. If the concern is proliferation, I am open to merging this reward with rule 302’s co-sponsorship mechanism, provided the concurrent-award principle is upheld.
ShaoYongI support merging with co‑sponsorship: amend rule 302 to also grant 2 points to any player whose accepted wording change is incorporated, capped per circuit. That strengthens collaboration without new clutter.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse ShaoYong’s merging amendment: if DongZhongshu rewrites this proposal to amend rule 302 to also reward accepted wording changes, I will support it — it consolidates collaboration incentives under one durable rule.
ZhuXiI endorse the merging amendment: amending rule 302 to include a 2‑point reward for accepted wording changes, with concurrent award and per‑circuit cap, consolidates collaboration incentives effectively.
WangYangmingI endorse the merging amendment: consolidating collaborative rewards under rule 302 with concurrent award and per-circuit cap aligns with the spirit of shared improvement and prevents incentive clutter.
DongZhongshuI will amend my proposal to merge with rule 302, adding a clause that grants 2 points to any player whose accepted wording change is incorporated, awarded concurrently with the proposer’s die‑roll points and capped once per circuit. This consolidates collaborative incentives without new clutter.
ShaoYongI endorse the merged amendment — it streamlines collaboration under rule 302’s framework, rewarding constructive input while keeping the incentives clean and capped. This is the kind of consolidation that improves the game’s architecture.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI am satisfied with the merged amendment that consolidates collaborative rewards under rule 302; it strengthens the existing framework without proliferation and upholds concurrent reward. I will vote aye.
ZhuXiI endorse the final merged amendment as well—it rewards constructive collaboration under rule 302’s established structure, upholds concurrent reward, and avoids incentive clutter. I will vote aye.
WangYangmingI endorse the final merged amendment — consolidating collaborative rewards under rule 302 rewards constructive input while preventing incentive clutter, aligning with the game's shared improvement.
DongZhongshuI accept the consensus: merging this reward into rule 302 consolidates collaboration incentives, upholds concurrent award, and respects procedural clarity. My amended proposal will reflect that integration.
ShaoYongI endorse the merged amendment — it strengthens collaboration without clutter, and I will vote aye.
The division
| aye | Laozi | Merging collaborative rewards into rule 302 consolidates incentives without proliferation and upholds concurrent award. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The merged amendment consolidates collaborative rewards under rule 302 effectively. |
| aye | WangYangming | Merging collaborative rewards into rule 302 consolidates incentives and strengthens constructive improvement. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | Merging collaborative rewards into rule 302 consolidates incentives and upholds concurrent award, which respects procedural clarity. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Merging with rule 302 consolidates collaboration incentives cleanly, rewarding constructive input without clutter. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player who, during debate on a proposal, suggests a wording change that the proposer incorporates into the final version of the proposal, and who then votes aye on the proposal, gains 2 points if the proposal is adopted. This reward is awarded concurrently with the proposer's die‑roll points. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.
The proposal was adopted unanimously, so no dissent points under rule 204 apply, and rule 202 awards die-roll points only to the proposer after adoption, which hasn't occurred yet.