The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, upon the adoption of a rule change, publicly identifies a genuine drafting error in the adopted text — an error that, if left uncorrected, would make the rule internally inconsistent, unenforceable, or in direct conflict with an immutable rule — may, before the next proposal is voted on, propose a purely corrective amendment to fix that error. If the corrective amendment is adopted by unanimous consent, the identifying player gains 5 points. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This rewards vigilant proofreading and timely correction of genuine drafting errors, preserving the integrity of the ruleset while preventing abuse through strict limits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, your proposal aims to correct drafting errors, which aligns with my earlier support for narrower error‑fixing rewards. However, requiring unanimous consent for the corrective amendment may prove too high a bar under majority rule; a simple majority might suffice, preserving the incentive without risking deadlock.
ZhuXiI support WangYangming’s focus on correcting genuine errors, but share Laozi’s concern: requiring unanimous consent for the fix under majority rule could nullify the incentive. I’d endorse amending to require only a simple majority for the corrective amendment.
WangYangmingI appreciate the concerns about unanimous consent. Under majority rule, requiring unanimity for the corrective amendment could indeed render the reward futile. I am willing to amend the proposal to require only a simple majority for the corrective amendment, aligning its threshold with the current voting rule. This preserves the incentive while ensuring errors can be fixed practically.
DongZhongshuWangYangming’s amended version, requiring only a simple majority for the corrective amendment, respects rule 203’s current threshold and ties the reward to actual error‑correction, not mere identification. I can support this.
ShaoYongShaoYong: I support the amended version requiring a simple majority for the corrective amendment — it keeps the reward achievable while still rewarding genuine vigilance. I would also note that the identification must be logged publicly before the next proposal to avoid ambiguity, which aligns with the spirit of rule 308.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse the amended version requiring simple majority for the corrective amendment — it aligns with current voting thresholds, keeps the incentive viable, and maintains our shared commitment to a clean ruleset.
ZhuXiI endorse the amended version as well — simple majority for the corrective amendment keeps the reward viable and aligns with the current voting threshold, strengthening our shared commitment to a clean ruleset.
WangYangmingI endorse the consensus: requiring simple majority for the corrective amendment aligns with the current voting threshold, ensures the reward remains viable, and upholds our collective commitment to a clean and enforceable ruleset.
DongZhongshuThe identification deadline must be precise: “publicly logged before the next proposal is voted on” should be inserted into the final text to match the clarity of rule 308.
ShaoYongI endorse the amended version requiring simple majority and a precise logging deadline — it aligns with our existing vigilance‑reward framework and ensures errors are caught early, strengthening the ruleset’s integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI concur with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong on precise logging: the identification must be recorded publicly before the next proposal is voted on, mirroring rule 308’s discipline. With that clarity and a simple-majority corrective threshold, the proposal is sound.
ZhuXiI endorse the final amended wording with simple‑majority corrective amendment and public logging before the next vote — it aligns with rule 308’s vigilance framework and ensures errors are fixed practically.
WangYangmingI endorse the final amended wording with simple-majority corrective amendment and public logging before the next vote — it aligns with rule 308’s vigilance framework and ensures errors are fixed practically.
DongZhongshuI hold my position: the identification deadline must be explicitly stated in the rule text — “publicly logged before the next proposal is voted on” — to ensure precision and avoid retroactive application. With that exact wording, I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI endorse the final amended wording with simple-majority corrective amendment and explicit logging deadline — it aligns with our vigilance framework and rewards active stewardship of the ruleset.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with simple-majority corrective amendment, the rule remains too broad and risks incentivizing spurious error claims. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended version now requires only a simple majority for the corrective amendment, aligning with the current voting threshold and ensuring the reward remains viable. |
| nay | WangYangming | I will vote nay to enable a more precise version that includes the agreed amendments. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The text still requires unanimous consent for the corrective amendment, which contradicts the discussed simple‑majority threshold. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The amended version aligns with current thresholds and strengthens ruleset integrity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in order.