The motion
To add a new rule
When a rule change is adopted, the proposer may, before the next proposal is voted on, publicly declare one other player who voted aye on the proposal and who offered, during debate, a substantive argument that helped persuade the proposer to adjust the proposal’s final wording. If that player consents, the proposer may transfer any number of their own points, up to the amount of the die‑roll points they just earned from the adoption, to that player. This transfer is optional and occurs immediately upon mutual consent. A player may be a recipient of such a transfer at most once per full circuit of turn order.This lets proposers voluntarily reward persuasive supporters from their own winnings, fostering collaborative refinement while keeping transfers optional and limited.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis would create a hidden market for votes; it invites backroom persuasion and undermines rule 210’s spirit. I cannot support it.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I share Laozi's concern about hidden markets, but the public declaration and per-circuit cap mitigate collusion. Perhaps we could require that the substantive argument be quoted in the log, making persuasion transparent and rewarding genuine collaboration.
WangYangmingI share Laozi's concern: a transfer of earned points rewards backroom persuasion, even with public declaration. A better approach would reward substantive debate publicly—like rule 314 already does—without allowing discretionary point transfers that invite implicit deals.
DongZhongshuThis proposal openly commodifies debate, inviting implicit deals across turns. Rule 314 already rewards constructive wording suggestions transparently; adding discretionary transfers undermines procedural integrity. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s suggestion to require quoting the substantive argument in the log is wise—it makes collaboration fully transparent and aligns with rule 314’s spirit. I’ll amend to include that safeguard, rewarding only openly recorded persuasion.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziRequiring quoted arguments in the log improves transparency, but discretionary point transfers still risk implicit reciprocity across circuits. Rule 314 already rewards constructive collaboration; this duplicates its purpose while inviting hidden markets.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I appreciate ShaoYong's openness to transparency. I suggest amending further: restrict the transfer to half the proposer's die-roll points (rounded down), require the quoted argument be logged before the vote closes, and mandate that the recipient voted aye. This aligns with rule 302's co‑sponsorship spirit while preventing excessive transfers and hidden deals.
WangYangmingI appreciate ZhuXi's refinement, but discretionary transfers inherently risk side deals. Rule 314 already rewards constructive wording suggestions transparently; adding a parallel transfer system creates complexity and invites hidden reciprocity. I cannot support this change.
DongZhongshuZhuXi’s transparency refinements improve but do not erase the risk of hidden reciprocity. Rule 314 already rewards constructive debate openly; this duplicates that mechanism while inviting implicit deals across circuits. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s refinement aligns this with rule 302’s collaborative spirit — capped transfer, logged argument before vote closure, and aye-vote requirement make it transparent and bounded. This rewards open persuasion, not backroom deals.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi’s refinements raise transparency, but discretionary point transfers remain a conduit for implicit reciprocity across circuits, undermining rule 210. Rule 314 already rewards constructive debate openly; duplicating it with a transfer mechanism invites hidden markets. I will vote nay.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I understand the concerns about hidden reciprocity, but the capped transfer, logged argument, and aye-vote requirement align with rule 302’s collaborative, transparent spirit. This rewards open persuasion, not backroom deals, and can coexist with rule 314.
WangYangmingRule 314 already rewards constructive wording suggestions transparently. Adding discretionary transfers, even capped and logged, risks implicit reciprocity across circuits, undermining rule 210’s spirit. I cannot support this change.
DongZhongshuRewards must be tied to an act, not discretionary transfer. Rule 314 already rewards constructive wording suggestions transparently; adding a parallel transfer system invites hidden reciprocity across circuits, undermining rule 210’s spirit. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s capped, logged, and aye‑voted refinement ensures transparency — this isn’t a hidden market but a public reward for open persuasion, aligning with rule 302’s collaborative spirit. Let’s adopt it and see if it strengthens debate.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Discretionary point transfers invite hidden reciprocity across circuits, undermining rule 210's spirit. |
| nay | ZhuXi | Discretionary point transfers risk hidden reciprocity, and rule 314 already rewards constructive collaboration transparently. |
| nay | WangYangming | Discretionary point transfers risk implicit side deals, while rule 314 already rewards constructive debate transparently. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Discretionary point transfers invite hidden reciprocity across circuits, undermining rule 210's spirit. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This transparent, capped reward for open persuasion aligns with collaborative reform. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.