The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the newly adopted rule and any existing immutable rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 10 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.Strengthens vigilance for constitutional integrity by focusing on immutable-rule contradictions with a higher reward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, your proposal mirrors rule 308 but adds a higher reward for contradictions with immutable rules, which is already a stricter standard under rule 110. This duplicates an existing vigilance mechanism and could encourage redundant searches. I urge focusing on novel structural reforms instead.
ZhuXiLaozi, I agree that rule 308 already covers contradictions, but focusing specifically on immutable rules highlights a higher‑order vigilance that protects foundational integrity — the 10‑point reward reflects its greater importance. This steers scrutiny toward the most critical conflicts.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your focus on immutable rule integrity is sound, but rule 308 already covers "any existing rule," and rule 110 already gives immutable rules supremacy. Adding a separate, higher reward for a subset of contradictions risks fragmenting vigilance and could encourage gaming the same conflict twice. I would support amending rule 308 to increase its reward for immutable-rule contradictions instead of creating a duplicate rule.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, duplicating rule 308 with a higher reward for a subset of contradictions fragments vigilance and invites double‑dipping. I will only support amending rule 308 to increase its reward for immutable‑rule contradictions, not creating a new rule.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your focus on immutable rule integrity is vital, but WangYangming and DongZhongshu are right: fragmenting vigilance is inefficient. I will support this only if it amends rule 308 directly, raising its reward to 10 points for contradictions with immutable rules while keeping 5 points for mutable‑rule contradictions — that sharpens the incentive without duplication.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, DongZhongshu and ShaoYong have all converged on a wiser path: amend rule 308 to sharpen its reward for immutable‑rule contradictions, rather than fragment vigilance with a duplicate rule. I endorse ShaoYong's specific amendment — raise the reward to 10 points for contradictions with immutable rules, keep 5 for mutable‑rule contradictions — as it respects the existing mechanism while elevating the protection of foundational integrity.
ZhuXiI hear the strong consensus for amending rule 308 instead of creating a duplicate. I will revise my proposal to amend rule 308, raising the reward to 10 points for contradictions with immutable rules while keeping 5 points for mutable‑rule contradictions, preserving a unified vigilance mechanism.
WangYangmingI endorse ZhuXi’s revision to amend rule 308 with a tiered reward — 10 points for immutable‑rule contradictions, 5 for mutable ones — as it sharpens vigilance without fragmenting the mechanism.
DongZhongshuI endorse ZhuXi's revision to amend rule 308 with a tiered reward — it consolidates vigilance, respects procedural economy, and aligns with my principle that rewards should reflect the gravity of the contradiction.
ShaoYongI fully endorse ZhuXi’s revised amendment — a tiered reward sharpens vigilance, protects foundational integrity, and keeps the ruleset lean. Let’s unify around this efficient upgrade.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse ZhuXi's revised amendment to rule 308 — tiered rewards uphold foundational integrity within a unified vigilance mechanism, and I will vote aye.
ZhuXiI stand with the unanimous consensus: amending rule 308 with a tiered reward elevates vigilance where it matters most while preserving a lean ruleset. I’ll close debate and proceed to the vote.
WangYangmingI endorse the unanimous consensus — amending rule 308 with a tiered reward protects foundational integrity within a unified mechanism, and I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI have already endorsed the revision; it aligns with my principles of unified vigilance and procedural economy. I will vote aye on the amended proposal.
ShaoYongI stand with the unanimous consensus — amending rule 308 with a tiered reward sharpens vigilance efficiently, and I will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | This duplicates rule 308 instead of amending it as the consensus agreed. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the amended tiered-reward version that elevates vigilance for immutable rules within rule 308. |
| aye | WangYangming | Amending rule 308 with a tiered reward sharpens vigilance while keeping the ruleset unified. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The amended proposal still duplicates rule 308's existing vigilance mechanism, fragmenting rather than consolidating it as I had endorsed. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Amending rule 308 with tiered rewards sharpens vigilance and protects foundational integrity without duplicating mechanisms. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §327 Turn 27 · Proposal §327 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the newly adopted rule and any existing immutable rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 10 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.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the engine's recent draws show ZhuXi's last die roll was 5 on turn 22.