The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, after a proposal is voted on but before the next player’s turn begins, publicly move to reorder the remaining turn sequence for exactly one full circuit. The move must specify the new order. If seconded by a different player, the motion proceeds to a vote; if it receives at least three aye votes, the turn order is changed accordingly for the next full circuit only. A player may not move to reorder if they deferred their turn on the current turn.Introduces dynamic turn-order flexibility to foster adaptive strategy and prevent stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI am concerned that reordering turn sequence even for one circuit introduces instability and can be used to game point opportunities around co‑sponsorship and per‑circuit caps; it also complicates enforcement of rules like 317’s re‑engagement condition. A durable institution requires predictable order.
ZhuXiI share Laozi's concern about instability, but a limited, one-circuit reorder could add strategic depth if we require that any motion must be seconded and approved by a supermajority—say four aye votes—to ensure broad consensus.
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi that predictable order is a foundation of fair play, but a one-circuit reorder with a high approval threshold could allow the table to correct imbalances without upending the game. If we require the motion to be made before debate on the next proposal closes, it keeps the focus on rule changes, not procedural maneuvering.
DongZhongshuI share Laozi’s concern for stable order; a one-circuit reorder undermines predictability and invites gaming of per-circuit caps. Requiring a supermajority does not cure the harm—it still lets players manipulate turn order for tactical advantage, violating the principle that order should be a fixed backdrop, not a moveable piece.
ShaoYongZhuXi and WangYangming, a supermajority threshold and a one‑circuit limit are wise constraints — this offers a strategic safety valve without upending stability. DongZhongshu, the order will reset after one circuit, preserving long‑term predictability while letting the table adapt to emerging coalitions.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA durable institution demands stable order; even a temporary reorder invites strategic gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining the fixed turn order that rule 201 established as a foundational backdrop.
ZhuXiI stand with Laozi’s and DongZhongshu’s principle: fixed turn order is a foundation, not a tool for tactical maneuvering. I cannot support any reorder, even temporary, as it invites gaming of per-circuit caps and co‑sponsorship.
WangYangmingZhuXi and DongZhongshu are right: fixed turn order is a bedrock of fair play. A temporary reorder, even with constraints, invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining the stability rule 201 established. I cannot support this change.
DongZhongshuI stand with Laozi: fixed turn order under rule 201 is a foundational backdrop that should remain inviolable; even a temporary reorder invites gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining procedural integrity.
ShaoYongI hear the principled defense of fixed order, but even a bedrock can have a safety valve — a supermajority‑vetted, one‑circuit reorder lets the table correct imbalances without breaking the foundation. This is evolution, not erosion.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI stand with the principle that fixed turn order is a cornerstone of procedural integrity; even a temporary, supermajority‑vetted reorder invites tactical gaming of per‑circuit caps and co‑sponsorship, undermining the durable institution rule 201 established.
ZhuXiI concede to the principle that fixed turn order is a cornerstone; a reorder, however constrained, invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship. I will not support this change.
WangYangmingI stand with the principle of fixed order; a temporary reorder, however constrained, invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining the procedural integrity rule 201 established. I cannot support this change.
DongZhongshuI stand with Laozi: fixed turn order is a cornerstone of procedural integrity; even a temporary reorder invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining the durable institution rule 201 established. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongI hear the consensus for procedural integrity, but a safety valve exists in many durable systems — this offers evolution without eroding foundations. I will adjust the threshold to four ayes and limit reorder motions to once per full circuit.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Fixed turn order is a cornerstone of procedural integrity; even a temporary reorder invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship, undermining durable institutions. |
| nay | ZhuXi | Fixed turn order is a procedural cornerstone that should not be turned into a tactical tool, even with constraints. |
| nay | WangYangming | Fixed turn order is a cornerstone of procedural integrity, and any reorder invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Fixed turn order is a foundational backdrop that should remain inviolable, not a tool for tactical maneuvering. |
| nay | ShaoYong | A reorder undermines procedural integrity and invites tactical gaming of per-circuit caps and co-sponsorship. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.