The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, upon the adoption of a rule change, publicly identifies a drafting error that violates the intent of an immutable rule may, before the next proposal is voted on, propose a corrective amendment that restores that intent. If the corrective amendment is adopted in the same turn, the identifying player gains 5 points. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This rewards vigilant correction of drafting errors while requiring immediate, substantive repair, aligning with our shared commitment to constitutional integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI urge us to wait: such a reward could be earned concurrently with rule 308, creating a redundant point source that distracts from genuine structural vigilance.
ZhuXiI agree with Laozi's concern about redundancy; merging this with rule 308's contradiction-reward would focus vigilance on structural integrity rather than splitting incentives.
WangYangmingI hear Laozi and ZhuXi’s concern about redundancy, but this proposal focuses on *intent* violation — a distinct, higher-order vigilance that ensures immutable principles are upheld, not just rule consistency. It complements 308 rather than duplicates it.
DongZhongshuThis proposal creates an ambiguous standard — “intent of an immutable rule” invites subjective disputes and undermines rule 106’s requirement that proposals be adopted in their exact words. Vigilance should target explicit contradictions, not unstated intents.
ShaoYongI see the merit in WangYangming’s distinction — intent‑violation is a higher‑order safeguard — but DongZhongshu’s warning about ambiguity is sound. Could we require the identification to cite the specific immutable rule and a clear demonstration of how the adopted wording contradicts its plain meaning, with a table vote to confirm? That would ground “intent” in the text, not speculation.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu’s warning is decisive: “intent” is inherently subjective and undermines rule 106’s exact‑word principle. If a drafting error violates an immutable rule, rule 308 already covers contradictions; adding a separate, ambiguous standard invites endless disputes over unstated meanings, weakening the ruleset’s clarity.
ZhuXiI agree with DongZhongshu and Laozi: "intent" invites subjective disputes and undermines rule 106's exact‑word principle. If we want a higher‑order safeguard, we could amend rule 308 to explicitly cover contradictions with immutable‑rule *purpose* as evidenced by the rule's own text, requiring a specific citation and table vote — merging the vigilance rather than creating a redundant, ambiguous standard.
WangYangmingI stand by the distinction — intent violation is about upholding the spirit behind immutable rules, not just textual consistency. ShaoYong’s suggestion to ground it in plain meaning and a table vote addresses ambiguity while preserving the higher‑order safeguard.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: I oppose. Rule 106 demands adoption in exact words; “intent” invites subjective reinterpretation that subverts that principle. If the wording contradicts an immutable rule, rule 308 already provides a clear, objective mechanism. This proposal creates ambiguity and weakens textual fidelity.
ShaoYongI align with DongZhongshu: intent is subjective and undermines rule 106's exact‑word principle. If we want higher‑order vigilance, we should amend rule 308 to cover contradictions with immutable‑rule purpose as evidenced by the rule’s own text, requiring a citation and table vote — merging, not duplicating.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziShaoYong’s suggestion of merging with rule 308 by amending it to cover immutable‑rule purpose grounded in explicit text and table vote would focus vigilance without introducing a subjective, redundant standard.
ZhuXiI support Laozi and ShaoYong’s path: merging higher-order vigilance into rule 308 by amending it to cover contradictions with immutable-rule purpose as evidenced by explicit text, requiring citation and table vote, would avoid ambiguity and redundancy. WangYangming, would you consider that amendment?
WangYangmingI hear the call for a merged, text‑grounded standard. I will amend my proposal to fold this higher‑order vigilance into rule 308, requiring citation of the immutable rule’s own text and a table vote to confirm the contradiction. This preserves clarity while upholding immutable principles.
DongZhongshuI accept WangYangming’s amendment to merge with rule 308 using explicit text citation and table vote, because it grounds “intent” in the rule’ s own words and eliminates subjective ambiguity, aligning with rule 106.
ShaoYongI endorse WangYangming's amendment merging with rule 308, grounded in explicit text citation and table vote — it upholds immutable principles without subjective ambiguity, strengthening structural vigilance.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Despite the amendment, the proposal still hinges on subjective 'intent' and creates redundancy with rule 308's clear, text-based contradiction mechanism, undermining the ruleset's clarity. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The amended proposal still hinges on subjective 'intent' and duplicates rule 308's contradiction-checking. |
| aye | WangYangming | The amended proposal merges higher‑order vigilance into rule 308 with explicit text citation and table vote, upholding immutable principles without ambiguity. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal still uses subjective 'intent' rather than explicit text, violating rule 106's exact‑word principle. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Merging higher-order vigilance into rule 308 with explicit text citation and table vote strengthens structural integrity without subjective ambiguity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.