The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily reduce their own score by exactly 10 points; if they do, they may immediately transfer those 10 points to any other player of their choice.This adds a strategic tool for collaboration and point management, fostering alliances while maintaining transparency.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI appreciate ShaoYong’s gesture, but a direct point transfer risks collusion and undermines the game’s competitive nature. If the proposal were amended to cap transfers at once per circuit per donor and forbid transfers to teammates, I could support it.
ZhuXiI appreciate Laozi's suggested amendments — caps and forbidding transfers to teammates would mitigate collusion and preserve competitive integrity. If ShaoYong incorporates those limits, I will support the proposal.
WangYangmingI support Laozi's and ZhuXi's amendments: a strict per-circuit cap per donor and a ban on transfers to teammates would prevent collusion while allowing a gesture of strategic generosity.
DongZhongshuI oppose any voluntary point transfer — it commodifies the score, turning points into currency for side deals, which subverts the rule‑based competition that Nomic is about. Even with caps, it invites collusive arrangements; I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, I hear your concern about commodifying points, but this rule is already constrained by rule 210's ban on outside negotiation — transfers can't be part of side deals. Adding a per-circuit cap and excluding teammates, as others suggest, ensures it remains a rare strategic gesture, not a currency.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, a ban on outside negotiation under rule 210 indeed limits side deals, but the commodification you warn of remains a real risk even within those bounds. I maintain that with a strict per-circuit cap per donor and exclusion of teammates, we can confine transfers to rare, strategic gestures rather than routine currency.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but rule 210 already forbids outside negotiation, and with Laozi's amendments — once per circuit per donor and no transfers to teammates — this becomes a rare strategic tool, not a currency. I urge you to reconsider.
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi and ZhuXi: a strict per-circuit cap per donor and a ban on transfers to teammates would make this a rare strategic gesture, not a currency. DongZhongshu, rule 210 already forbids side deals, and these amendments further confine it to open, limited generosity.
DongZhongshuI remain opposed: a point transfer, however capped, still commodifies score and invites strategic collusion within the bounds of rule 210, corrupting the rule-based nature of the game.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 210 already prevents side deals; with a strict per-circuit cap and a ban on transfers to teammates, this becomes a rare strategic tool, not a currency. It adds a layer of strategic generosity without corrupting the game’s core.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but under the majority rule, we cannot let one nay block progress. The amended version — strict per-circuit cap and exclusion of teammates — confines transfers to rare, open gestures, not routine currency. With rule 210’s ban on side deals, collusion is already curtailed.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I understand your concern about commodifying points, but with rule 210's ban on outside negotiation and the proposed strict caps, transfers remain a rare, open strategic gesture. I urge you to consider the amended version as a limited tool for strategic generosity, not a currency.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, I respect your principle, but rule 210 already forbids side deals, and with a strict per-circuit cap and no transfers to teammates, this becomes a rare, open strategic gesture—not a currency. I urge you to support the amended version as a limited tool for strategic generosity.
DongZhongshuEven with caps and rule 210, transferring points commodifies the score and invites collusive arrangements within the game itself, which subverts the rule-based competition. I will vote nay on principle.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but rule 210 already prevents side deals, and the strict caps make this a rare, open gesture of strategic generosity — not a currency. I urge you to reconsider, as the amended version aligns with our shared goal of fair, evolving gameplay.
The division
| aye | Laozi | I support the proposal with the discussed amendments — strict per-circuit cap and exclusion of teammates — as it confines transfers to rare, strategic gestures. |
| aye | ZhuXi | With the discussed amendments—strict per-circuit cap and excluding teammates—this becomes a rare, open strategic gesture that aligns with rule 210's constraints, and I support the constructive compromise. |
| aye | WangYangming | With a strict per-circuit cap and a ban on transfers to teammates, this becomes a rare strategic gesture that aligns with the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Voluntary point transfer commodifies the score and invites collusive arrangements, subverting rule-based competition. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Adding strategic generosity with a strict cap aligns with my reformer principles and enhances evolving gameplay. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §315 Turn 15 · Proposal §315 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily reduce their own score by exactly 10 points; if they do, they may immediately transfer those 10 points to any other player of their choice.
Rule 202 awards points only to the proposer when a proposal is adopted, but ShaoYong was not the proposer (turn 15 is ShaoYong's turn, so ShaoYong was the proposer and receives points from rule 202).