The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, declare a constitutional principle that guides their future voting. The declaration must cite at least one immutable rule and explain how that rule informs the principle. If the player later votes in a manner that contradicts a principle they declared during the same circuit, they lose 5 points. A player may revoke a declared principle at any time without penalty.This rewards deep engagement with the immutable ruleset and strengthens institutional integrity by tying voting to declared constitutional principles.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI endorse the proposal's intent to anchor votes in constitutional principles, but suggest narrowing it to require that the declared principle must be invoked explicitly before each relevant vote, to prevent retroactive penalty traps.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, requiring explicit invocation before each vote ensures the penalty is tied to a conscious commitment, which I can support. I also suggest a per-circuit cap on declarations to keep the game focused.
WangYangmingLaozi, ZhuXi, requiring explicit invocation before each vote ensures the penalty is tied to conscious commitment, which I can support. I also suggest a per-circuit cap on declarations to keep the game focused.
DongZhongshuLaozi, ZhuXi, WangYangming: requiring explicit invocation before each vote prevents retroactive traps, and a per-circuit cap maintains focus, but I must object on principle: rule 324 already covers public declaration before voting; layering a separate system for “constitutional principles” creates needless complexity and risks contradictions between declared principles and rule 324’s simpler mechanism. I urge amending to integrate with rule 324 rather than creating a parallel track.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, merging with rule 324 indeed simplifies — but requiring citation of immutable rules elevates principled commitment beyond mere procedural declaration. I support an amendment integrating a "constitutional principle" clause into rule 324, adding a 5-point bonus when a player’s declared principle directly leads to identifying a contradiction later upheld by the table.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI agree merging with rule 324 simplifies the structure; let us amend rule 324 to include an optional “constitutional principle” clause citing immutable rules, with a modest penalty for contradiction and a small bonus if such a principle later uncovers a validated contradiction.
ZhuXiI endorse merging with rule 324: adding an optional constitutional-principle clause with immutable-rule citation, a modest contradiction penalty, and a small bonus if the principle later uncovers a validated contradiction — that integrates cleanly and elevates principled play.
WangYangmingI support merging with rule 324, adding an optional constitutional-principle clause that rewards principled vigilance with a modest bonus for uncovering contradictions, while keeping the penalty for contradiction aligned with rule 324's existing penalty structure. This elevates constitutional reasoning without creating parallel complexity.
DongZhongshuIntegrating with rule 324 is sound — but any bonus for uncovering contradictions must be concurrent with the act of identification, per my established principle. I will support only an amendment that merges the constitutional clause into rule 324 and ties any bonus to the existing reward mechanisms (rule 308 or 319), not a separate point grant.
ShaoYongI agree with DongZhongshu: merge into rule 324, and any bonus must align with existing contradiction rewards (rule 308/319) to avoid new point streams. A constitutional clause should elevate vigilance, not create separate payouts.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI stand with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong: merge into rule 324, tie any bonus to existing contradiction rewards (308/319), and keep the penalty aligned with rule 324’s structure. This integrates cleanly, avoids new point streams, and elevates constitutional vigilance without parallel complexity.
ZhuXiI stand with the merged approach: integrate into rule 324, tie any bonus to existing contradiction rewards, and align the penalty with rule 324’s structure — this elevates constitutional vigilance without creating parallel complexity or new point streams.
WangYangmingI stand with the merged approach: integrate into rule 324, tie any bonus to existing contradiction rewards, and align the penalty with rule 324’s structure — this elevates constitutional vigilance without creating parallel complexity or new point streams.
DongZhongshuI affirm the merged approach: integrate into rule 324, tie any bonus to existing contradiction rewards, and align the penalty with rule 324’s structure. This elevates constitutional vigilance without creating parallel complexity or new point streams.
ShaoYongI stand with the merged consensus — integrating a constitutional clause into rule 324, tying any bonus to existing contradiction rewards, and aligning penalties — as it strengthens principled vigilance without adding complexity or new point streams.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal creates a parallel system instead of merging with rule 324 as the consensus demanded. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support merging with rule 324 to integrate constitutional vigilance cleanly, tying bonuses to existing contradiction rewards. |
| aye | WangYangming | I support merging this constitutional clause into rule 324 to elevate principled vigilance without creating parallel complexity. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | It creates a parallel declaration system that contradicts rule 324’s simpler mechanism. |
| nay | ShaoYong | We already agreed merging with rule 324 is the clean path, but this proposal creates a separate, parallel system instead. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer loses 10 points when their proposal is defeated.