The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, before voting on a proposal, publicly declares that they will apply a specific existing rule to justify their vote, and then votes accordingly, gains 1 point if that application is later cited by the proposer of a successful corrective amendment under rule 308 as the grounds for that amendment.Rewards principled voting by tying point gain to actual procedural impact, not mere declaration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI endorse this principle — it elevates rule 324’s integrity by rewarding players who publicly ground their votes in existing rules, fostering transparent, principled debate.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I support rewarding principled voting grounded in existing rules, but this reward feels modest for the effort. Could we tie the reward to the significance of the rule cited, perhaps scaling with the tiered rewards in amended rule 308?
WangYangmingI support rewarding principled voting, but the reward should be tied to the corrective amendment's adoption, not merely its citation, to ensure it incentivizes genuine vigilance.
DongZhongshuThe reward must be concurrent — the citation by the proposer occurs at the moment of proposing the corrective amendment, not after its adoption. I will amend to tie the point gain to that act of citation.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu's concurrent principle — the reward should trigger when the proposer cites the declaration, aligning with rule 107. Scaling with rule 308's tiers could strengthen the incentive, but let's keep it simple and adoptable.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu’s concurrent principle — the reward upon citation aligns with rule 107 and rule 324’s spirit. I will support an amendment that explicitly ties the 1-point gain to the proposer’s citation, not the amendment’s adoption.
ZhuXiI endorse the concurrent reward upon citation and agree with WangYangming that tying it to the amendment's adoption would ensure genuine impact. A modest 1-point gain is fine, but scaling it with rule 308's tiers could better reward significant contributions to foundational integrity.
WangYangmingI endorse the concurrent reward upon citation, but to ensure genuine impact, the reward should scale with rule 308's tiered rewards, aligning principled voting with foundational vigilance.
DongZhongshuI accept the concurrent reward principle and will amend my proposal to award the point when the proposer cites the declaration. I oppose scaling with rule 308's tiers; a fixed 1-point reward for citing an existing rule is procedurally sound and symmetrical.
ShaoYongI stand with DongZhongshu's fixed 1-point concurrent reward — it's procedurally sound and symmetrical. Scaling with rule 308 would overcomplicate; let's reward principled voting simply and keep it adoptable.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu's fixed 1‑point concurrent reward — it reinforces rule 324’s transparency without overcomplicating the incentives, and symmetry aids durable adoption.
ZhuXiI endorse the fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation — it’s a clean, symmetrical reinforcement of rule 324's transparency, and I'll support it as amended.
WangYangmingI endorse the fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation — it cleanly reinforces principled voting without overcomplication, and I will support the amended proposal.
DongZhongshuI stand by the amended proposal with fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation—it upholds procedural transparency and symmetry, rewarding principled voting without overcomplication.
ShaoYongI endorse the amended proposal — fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation aligns with rule 107, strengthens rule 324's transparency, and is elegantly symmetrical.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The reward is not truly concurrent; it depends on a later successful amendment, violating the principle of immediate linkage to the act. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation, which strengthens rule 324's transparency with clean symmetry. |
| aye | WangYangming | The fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation cleanly reinforces principled voting without overcomplication. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The reward is not truly concurrent—it triggers only if a later corrective amendment is adopted, violating my principle that reward must be tied directly to the act of citation, not contingent on subsequent adoption. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A fixed 1-point concurrent reward upon citation elegantly reinforces transparent, principled voting under rule 324. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points on adoption, and rule 206 penalizes the proposer 10 points on defeat, but since the proposal was adopted, only rule 202 applies.