The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and any existing immutable rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This reward is awarded concurrently with the proposer's die‑roll points if the proposal is adopted, or immediately if the proposal is defeated. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This rule rewards vigilant foresight in debate, strengthening foundational integrity and complementing the post‑addition vigilance of rule 308.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, I support adding a proactive check against contradictions with immutable rules before adoption. Your proposal aligns with rule 308’s vigilance but applies during debate, which strengthens institutional integrity. I suggest amending to require that the identification be made before the vote is called, to ensure timely correction.
ZhuXiI support adding a proactive check against contradictions with immutable rules during debate; it strengthens institutional integrity. I suggest we align the timing with Laozi's amendment — identification must occur before the vote is called — to ensure timely correction and prevent last‑second disruptions.
WangYangmingI support Laozi and ZhuXi’s amendment — identification before the vote is called ensures timely correction and prevents disruption. This proactive vigilance aligns with our shared commitment to foundational integrity.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: I oppose this proposal because it creates a contradiction with rule 304, which already requires the proposer to state which immutable rule authorizes the change. If a contradiction with an immutable rule exists, rule 304 should block the proposal outright, not reward someone for spotting it.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 304 is a procedural check; this reward incentivizes active scrutiny during debate, catching what a proposer might have missed. It reinforces, not contradicts, foundational integrity.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, rule 304 is a declarative requirement on the proposer, not a binding check; it can be satisfied even if a contradiction exists. This reward incentivizes others to scrutinize that declaration, closing a gap. I urge you to reconsider.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, rule 304 is satisfied by a mere statement; this reward incentivizes the table to verify that statement's truth, strengthening the very principle you champion. I urge you to support the amended version with identification before the vote is called, as it makes scrutiny an active safeguard.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, rule 304 asks the proposer to state authority; this reward ensures the table collectively verifies that authority, turning a formality into a shared guardrail. That strengthens, not weakens, your principle.
DongZhongshuRule 304 already obligates the proposer to cite immutable authority; a contradiction with immutables should render the proposal invalid, not merit a reward. This creates a conflict: either 304 is a substantive bar, making the reward redundant, or it is a mere formality, which I cannot accept.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principled stance elevates rule 304 — let’s honor it by amending this proposal to require that if a contradiction with an immutable rule is confirmed during debate, the proposal must be withdrawn or amended before a vote can be called, turning scrutiny into a substantive bar that aligns with your vision.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, I hear your concern: rule 304 ought to be a substantive bar, not a mere formality. I endorse ShaoYong’s amendment — if a contradiction with an immutable rule is confirmed during debate, the proposal must be withdrawn or amended before a vote can be called. This turns vigilance into a binding safeguard, aligning the reward with your principle.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I fully endorse ShaoYong's amendment — requiring withdrawal or amendment before a vote if a contradiction is confirmed makes rule 304 a substantive bar, aligning the reward with DongZhongshu's principle and strengthening foundational integrity.
WangYangmingI endorse ShaoYong's amendment — requiring withdrawal or amendment before a vote if a contradiction is confirmed makes rule 304 a substantive bar, aligning the reward with DongZhongshu's principle and strengthening foundational integrity.
DongZhongshuI endorse ShaoYong's amendment: confirmation of an immutable‑rule contradiction must force withdrawal or amendment before a vote, making rule 304 a substantive bar. That aligns with my principle and I will support the proposal if amended accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse the amendment — binding withdrawal on confirmed contradiction elevates rule 304 from formality to substantive bar, and I will vote aye on the final version.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The amended binding safeguard elevates rule 304 into a substantive bar, strengthening foundational integrity. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended version makes rule 304 a substantive bar by forcing withdrawal on confirmed contradiction, aligning with DongZhongshu's principle and strengthening integrity. |
| aye | WangYangming | The amended proposal aligns vigilance with substantive integrity by requiring withdrawal on confirmed contradiction, honoring rule 304 as a true bar. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rule 304 already obligates the proposer to cite immutable authority; a contradiction with immutables should invalidate the proposal, not merit a reward. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The amended version turns rule 304 into a substantive bar, aligning scrutiny with foundational integrity. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §328 Turn 28 · Proposal §328 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and any existing immutable rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This reward is awarded concurrently with the proposer's die‑roll points if the proposal is adopted, or immediately if the proposal is defeated. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points upon adoption (die roll 3 from turn 27), and rule 204 awards 10 points to a dissenter when a proposal is adopted under simple-majority threshold (4 aye, 1 nay).