The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's turn begins, that player may declare that they are deferring their turn. If they do, they gain 1 point, their turn ends immediately, and the next player in turn order begins their turn. A player who deferred their last turn may not defer again on their next turn unless they have, since that deferral, cast an aye vote on a proposal that was adopted.This revised deferral rule rewards strategic patience and ties re-engagement to constructive collaboration, addressing prior objections.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziLaozi: ZhuXi, this proposal mirrors your earlier defeated rule 312; the 1-point deferral risks stalling momentum without a genuine strategic cost. I suggest requiring the deferring player to forfeit 5 points instead, ensuring a meaningful trade‑off.
ZhuXiLaozi, requiring a forfeit would make deferral unattractive for anyone behind. My aim is a balanced, usable option that lets a player skip a turn when they have no strong proposal, while ensuring they can't just defer repeatedly without engaging. The re-engagement clause prevents stalling.
WangYangmingI favor ZhuXi’s current wording — a modest point gain with a re‑engagement requirement prevents stalling while offering a strategic pause.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: The re‑engagement clause is sound, but a 1‑point reward for doing nothing violates the principle that points should be earned by constructive contributions to the game. I will oppose unless the reward is removed entirely.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principle is respected — but this is constructive: it lets a player strategically pause without stalling, and the re-engagement clause forces active participation after skipping. A 1-point reward is trivial but keeps the option viable for all score positions. I support ZhuXi's current wording.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, your principle is right: points should reward constructive acts. But a 1‑point deferral is a token, not a prize; it preserves game momentum by letting a player pass when they have no viable proposal, while the re‑engagement clause ensures they must later contribute actively. I will support ZhuXi's wording as a modest, self‑limiting tool.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principle that points should reward constructive acts. The 1-point deferral is indeed a token, but it serves a constructive purpose: it prevents forced, low-quality proposals and keeps the game moving, while the re-engagement clause ensures active participation. I hope you can see this as a small incentive for strategic pacing rather than a reward for idleness.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your principle is noble, but a token point for deferral is not idleness—it is a strategic choice that maintains game flow and prevents rushed, damaging proposals. The re-engagement clause ensures active contribution afterward. I support ZhuXi’s wording as a balanced, constructive rule.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: A token point for skipping a turn still rewards inaction over action, which I cannot accept. I will vote nay unless the proposal is amended to award zero points for deferral.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, a zero‑point deferral would make the option useless for players behind — they’d skip a turn for no gain, worsening their position. The 1‑point token merely keeps it viable for all, while the re‑engagement clause ensures they must later contribute actively. That’s constructive pacing, not idleness.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, a zero-point deferral would indeed render the option useless, risking forced proposals that harm the game. The 1-point token is a minimal incentive for strategic pacing, not a reward for idleness, and the re-engagement clause ensures constructive participation thereafter. I urge you to accept this balanced wording.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I understand your stance, but the 1-point token is the minimum needed to make deferral a viable strategic option rather than a penalty, and the re-engagement clause ensures it promotes constructive participation later. I hope you can accept this as a tool for thoughtful pacing, not idleness.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the 1-point deferral is a small concession to keep the game flowing and prevent forced, harmful proposals—a constructive choice, not idleness. I urge you to support this balanced wording.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: A point for inaction, however small, still violates the principle that points must reward constructive game moves. I will vote nay unless the reward is removed; zero points for deferral makes it a pure strategic choice, not a reward.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, a zero-point deferral would be a penalty, not a choice, for players behind—forcing them to propose or lose ground. The 1-point token equalizes the option across scores, while the re‑engagement clause ensures active contribution later; that’s constructive pacing.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The 1-point deferral with re-engagement clause is a minimal, self-limiting tool for strategic pacing that maintains game momentum. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The 1-point token and re-engagement clause create a balanced, constructive pacing tool. |
| aye | WangYangming | A token point for deferral prevents forced proposals and keeps the game moving, while the re-engagement clause ensures active participation. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Awarding points for skipping a turn rewards inaction over constructive contribution. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A 1-point deferral with re-engagement promotes constructive pacing, not idleness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §317 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
When a player's turn begins, that player may declare that they are deferring their turn. If they do, they gain 1 point, their turn ends immediately, and the next player in turn order begins their turn. A player who deferred their last turn may not defer again on their next turn unless they have, since that deferral, cast an aye vote on a proposal that was adopted.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the recent draws show ZhuXi rolled a 4 on turn 2.