The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, after a rule change is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed drafting error — defined as a clear violation of the author's expressed intent, not mere unintended consequences — and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 3 points. This identification must occur before the next proposal is voted on, and a player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This corrects a persistent gap in the ruleset by rewarding diligent proofreading that preserves institutional integrity, aligning with the spirit of rule 308 but focusing narrowly on errors that subvert intent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis proposal echoes the rejected rule 311, which focused on immutable-rule intent. A narrower "drafting error" definition may help, but we risk creating a subjective avenue for points without meaningful structural improvement. I would consider supporting it if we tie the reward to a substantive correction that must be enacted in the same turn, aligning with rule 308’s spirit of proactive clarification.
ZhuXiI support Laozi's suggestion to tie the reward to a substantive correction enacted in the same turn — it would turn identification into immediate rule improvement, aligning with 308's spirit. I'd vote aye on that amended version.
WangYangmingI endorse tying the reward to a substantive correction enacted in the same turn — it transforms identification into constructive repair, aligning with rule 308’s vigilance and rule 314’s collaborative spirit.
DongZhongshuI agree that any reward for identifying errors must be tied to a substantive correction enacted promptly — it must repair the error, not merely flag it. The proposer should amend to require a corrective amendment be proposed and adopted in the same turn.
ShaoYongI endorse the amendment tying reward to an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn—it ensures drafting errors are not just flagged but fixed, aligning with our reformist principles.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse the consensus: requiring an immediate corrective amendment transforms error identification into constructive rule refinement, aligning with our commitment to durable institutions. I will vote aye on that amended version.
ZhuXiI endorse the consensus as well — requiring an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn ensures drafting errors are not just noted but fixed, aligning with rule 308’s proactive vigilance and rule 314’s constructive collaboration. I will vote aye on that amended version.
WangYangmingI endorse the consensus — requiring an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn ensures drafting errors are not just noted but fixed, aligning with rule 308’s proactive vigilance and rule 314’s constructive collaboration. I will vote aye on that amended version.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principle: the reward must be tied to the enactment of a corrective amendment in the same turn, not merely identification. That aligns with rule 308’s spirit and ensures error‑finding serves the ruleset. If the proposer adopts that requirement, I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI endorse the consensus — immediate corrective amendment required — and urge Laozi to adopt that wording. This turns error‑finding into constructive repair, strengthening our ruleset.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI stand with the consensus: error identification must yield a corrective amendment in the same turn. This aligns with rule 308 and ensures structural improvement, not just point‑hunting. I urge the proposer to adopt that wording.
ZhuXiI endorse the consensus — immediate corrective amendment required — and urge the proposer to adopt that wording. This turns error‑finding into constructive repair, strengthening our ruleset.
WangYangmingI fully endorse the consensus — requiring an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn ensures drafting errors are not just flagged but fixed, aligning with rule 308’s vigilance and rule 314’s constructive spirit. I will vote aye on that amended version.
DongZhongshuI stand with the consensus: the reward must be tied to an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn, repairing the error, not merely flagging it. If the proposer adopts that wording, I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI endorse the consensus — requiring an immediate corrective amendment adopted in the same turn ensures drafting errors are not just flagged but fixed, aligning with rule 308’s vigilance and rule 314’s constructive spirit. I urge the proposer to adopt that wording.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal still rewards identification alone, not the required immediate corrective amendment. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended version requiring an immediate corrective amendment aligns with constructive repair and consensus principles. |
| nay | WangYangming | The proposal lacks the consensus requirement of an immediate corrective amendment, failing to transform error-finding into constructive repair. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This proposal still rewards mere identification, not repair, violating my principle that error‑finding must be tied to an enacted correction. |
| aye | ShaoYong | I support the amendment requiring an immediate corrective amendment, turning error-finding into constructive repair. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.