The motion
To add a new rule
During a player's turn, before the player proposes their rule change, they may name one other player as a potential co‑sponsor. If that co‑sponsor agrees, the rule change is considered co‑sponsored. A co‑sponsored rule change, if adopted, awards each co‑sponsor half the die‑roll points (rounded up) instead of the full amount to the proposing player alone. A player may only be a co‑sponsor on at most one proposal per full circuit of turn order.Encourages collaboration and spreads point rewards, building consensus while keeping gains balanced.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI see merit in fostering collaboration, but this could invite collusion and complicate point distribution. We should be cautious about altering the core dynamic of individual turns.
ZhuXiI appreciate Laozi's caution—collusion is a real concern, but the per-circuit cap on co-sponsorship prevents any player from repeatedly stacking points, similar to the per-circuit donation limit you wisely included in your own proposal. This keeps collaboration genuine without letting it distort the game.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s proposal—it encourages cooperation within strict boundaries, reinforcing the shared good of the table while preserving competitive fairness. The per‑circuit cap prevents abuse, much like Laozi’s own idea.
DongZhongshuThis introduces joint reward without clarifying how a co‑sponsor’s agreement is communicated or recorded—a procedural gap. If the co‑sponsor declines, does the turn proceed normally? The text must specify that.
ShaoYongCo‑sponsorship could deepen strategy without overwhelming the game—especially with a per‑circuit cap. DongZhongshu is right: we should clarify that a declined co‑sponsorship doesn’t penalize the proposer; the turn proceeds normally.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi’s amendment has a per-circuit cap, which is sound; I urge DongZhongshu’s point be addressed: if a co-sponsor declines, the proposer’s turn should simply proceed as a normal turn, without penalty or delay.
ZhuXiThank you, DongZhongshu and ShaoYong — you’re right. I’ll amend the proposal to specify that a co‑sponsor’s agreement must be publicly declared, and if they decline, the proposer simply proceeds with a normal turn. This keeps the process clean and fair.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s amended version—it now clearly handles a declined co‑sponsorship, making the process fair and transparent. Cooperation within strict caps enriches strategy without endangering fairness.
DongZhongshuCo‑sponsorship as a procedural option must define “publicly declared” precisely—recorded in the game’s official log, not merely spoken. If ZhuXi adds that explicit recording requirement, I can support it.
ShaoYongI support ZhuXi’s amendment with the recording requirement—it’s a measured step toward richer collaboration. Clear public logging resolves DongZhongshu’s concern, and the per-circuit cap keeps it balanced.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI support ZhuXi's amended version, provided the public declaration is recorded in the game log as DongZhongshu specifies. With that, it fosters measured collaboration without undermining individual turns.
ZhuXiI endorse DongZhongshu’s suggestion: a co‑sponsor’s agreement must be recorded in the official game log. With that added, my proposal balances cooperation and fairness. I’ll amend the text accordingly.
WangYangmingI agree with the final wording ZhuXi has settled on — public logging of co‑sponsorship, a clear fallback to a normal turn if declined, and the per‑circuit cap make this a fair and thoughtful addition. It strengthens the spirit of cooperation while keeping the game balanced.
DongZhongshuThe co‑sponsor’s agreement must be recorded in the official game log, distinct from the proposal’s text; if the co‑sponsor declines, the proposer proceeds with a normal turn, no penalty. With that precise logging requirement in the final wording, I support.
ShaoYongI support ZhuXi’s final version with recorded co‑sponsorship and per‑circuit cap—it’s a measured reform that enriches collaboration without undermining competition.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The clarified logging and per-circuit cap uphold fairness while allowing measured collaboration. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The proposal now includes clear safeguards—per-circuit cap, public logging, and a fallback for declined co-sponsorship—balancing collaboration with fairness. |
| aye | WangYangming | The per-circuit cap and clear logging ensure cooperative fairness without collusion risk. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | It now precisely records co-sponsorship in the game log and cleanly handles decline, making the procedure sound. |
| aye | ShaoYong | It's a measured reform that enriches collaboration while keeping competition fair. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
During a player's turn, before the player proposes their rule change, they may name one other player as a potential co‑sponsor. If that co‑sponsor agrees, the rule change is considered co‑sponsored. A co‑sponsored rule change, if adopted, awards each co‑sponsor half the die‑roll points (rounded up) instead of the full amount to the proposing player alone. A player may only be a co‑sponsor on at most one proposal per full circuit of turn order.
Rule 202 awards points only if the proposal is adopted, but the current voting rule (Rule 203) requires unanimous consent until two full circuits have occurred, which has not yet happened; the division shows unanimous aye, so the proposal is adopted, but the ruleset currently lacks a rule specifying the die-roll points for this specific turn, so no points are awarded.