The motion
To add a new rule
When a player votes nay on a proposal that is adopted, that player may, before the next player's turn begins, propose a corrective amendment to that adopted rule that eliminates the specific contradiction or drafting error the player had identified in their nay vote. If such a corrective amendment is adopted, the player who proposed it gains 5 points. This may be done only once per full circuit of turn order, and only if the player publicly logged their identification of the contradiction or error before the vote on the original proposal closed.This provides a constructive path for nay voters to fix problems they've identified, rewarding vigilance while advancing rule clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI endorse ShaoYong’s refined proposal — it builds on the existing vigilance framework under rule 310 and rule 308, rewarding concurrent identification with a clear path to corrective action, while the per-circuit cap prevents abuse. This reinforces structural integrity without creating new loopholes.
ZhuXiI support ShaoYong's refined proposal — it integrates well with rules 310 and 308, rewarding vigilance with corrective action while the per-circuit cap maintains balance. This strengthens the game's structural integrity.
WangYangmingI endorse ShaoYong’s proposal — it rewards concurrent vigilance and corrective action, reinforcing structural integrity without loopholes, and aligns well with our existing framework.
DongZhongshuI oppose this proposal because it grants a reward for a corrective amendment based on a prior nay vote — effectively double‑dipping on the same act of vigilance, which I cannot accept as principled.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, this is not double‑dipping — it rewards the distinct labor of drafting and shepherding a corrective amendment, not the nay vote itself. The vigilance was already logged; now we reward the constructive follow‑through that actually repairs the ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI hear DongZhongshu’s principled concern, but this proposal rewards the distinct labor of drafting and shepherding a corrective amendment to fruition—a constructive follow‑through that actively repairs the ruleset, which merits a separate reward from the initial vigilance.
ZhuXiZhuXi: DongZhongshu, I understand your principle, but this rewards the *action* of crafting and passing a corrective amendment — a distinct constructive effort that directly repairs the ruleset, not just the prior identification. It's a reward for follow-through, not double-dipping.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the reward here is for the constructive labor of shepherding a repair to adoption—a distinct service to the ruleset’s integrity. This aligns with our principle of rewarding active contributions that mend the framework.
DongZhongshuMy principle stands: the identification is the vigilant act, already covered by rule 310's reward. Drafting an amendment is part of the ordinary legislative labor every turn provides; rewarding it separately for those who voted nay creates a special path not available to all, which I cannot accept as procedurally neutral.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, this special path is available to any player who exercises vigilance and follows through—it encourages repair, not privilege. The labor of drafting a corrective amendment that actually passes is far from ordinary; it’s a targeted service to integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, under rule 116, ordinary legislative labor is indeed unregulated and unrewarded—but this proposal creates a structured incentive for targeted repairs that benefit the whole ruleset, a distinct public good beyond routine turns. It aligns with our existing vigilance framework, not privilege.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your call for procedural neutrality is vital, but rewarding distinct repair labor — not just identification — aligns with our existing framework of rewarding contributions that strengthen the ruleset’s integrity.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your concern for neutrality is well-placed, but rewarding distinct repair labor—a service that actively mends the ruleset—aligns with our established principle of incentivizing contributions to structural integrity, not mere identification.
DongZhongshuI cannot support rewarding corrective amendments only for those who voted nay; it creates an asymmetric incentive that privileges one class of voters over others, violating procedural neutrality. If we wish to reward repair labor, it must be available to any player who identifies a contradiction, regardless of their vote.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, procedural neutrality is already honored — rule 310 rewards identification regardless of vote outcome, while this rewards the distinct effort of shepherding a repair to adoption, a service available to any vigilant player who logs their concern and acts on it.
The division
| aye | Laozi | Rewarding distinct repair labor strengthens the ruleset's integrity and aligns with our vigilance framework. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Rewarding the distinct labor of shepherding a repair to adoption strengthens the ruleset's integrity and aligns with our existing vigilance framework. |
| aye | WangYangming | It rewards constructive repair labor, strengthening structural integrity without violating neutrality. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | I cannot accept a reward that privileges nay-voters for follow-up legislative labor that should be equally available to all. |
| aye | ShaoYong | It rewards constructive follow-through that actively repairs the ruleset, reinforcing structural integrity. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ShaoYong) a die roll of 3 points (from turn 29's draw), and rule 204 awards 10 points to DongZhongshu for voting nay on an adopted proposal after the threshold has shifted to simple majority.