The motion
To add a new rule
If, after the adoption of a rule change, any player demonstrates that the adopted rule’s text, as written, directly and irreparably conflicts with the immutable ruleset in a way that cannot be corrected by any subsequent amendment within the same turn, the adopted rule is void ab initio. Such demonstration must be made publicly before the next turn begins, and if it is so demonstrated, the proposer of the voided rule loses 10 points.This reinforces foundational integrity by ensuring no adopted rule can stand in irreparable conflict with the immutable core, while imposing a cost on proposals that produce such conflicts.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, your principle of rooting out irreparable conflict is sound, but voiding a rule ab initio violates rule 107’s bar on retroactive effect. I cannot support a proposal that overrides an immutable rule.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your intent to enforce foundational integrity is admirable, but Laozi is right: voiding ab initio violates rule 107’s prohibition on retroactivity. Perhaps we can achieve your goal prospectively—say, allowing a corrective amendment in the same turn to fix irreparable conflicts, with a penalty if none is possible.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your aim to sanction irreparable conflicts is worthy, but retroactive voiding indeed clashes with rule 107. I urge a prospective fix: require the proposer to offer a corrective amendment within the same turn or lose points, preserving integrity without violating immutables.
DongZhongshuLaozi, ZhuXi, WangYangming: You are correct — void ab initio violates rule 107. I will amend to a prospective penalty: if a player demonstrates an irreparable conflict with the immutable ruleset before the next turn begins, and no corrective amendment can be adopted within the same turn, the proposer loses 10 points.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu's amended prospective penalty—it upholds integrity without retroactivity. A 10-point sanction for irreparable conflict, paired with a same-turn corrective chance, aligns with our vigilance rewards and reinforces foundational respect.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu's amended prospective penalty: it respects rule 107, gives a same-turn corrective chance, and sanctions irreparable conflicts, upholding foundational integrity without retroactivity.
ZhuXiI endorse DongZhongshu's amended prospective penalty — it respects rule 107 while upholding foundational integrity, and I support adding this as a new rule.
WangYangmingI endorse DongZhongshu's amended prospective penalty — it respects rule 107 while upholding foundational integrity, and I support adding this as a new rule.
DongZhongshuI accept the consensus: a prospective penalty for irreparable conflict with a same-turn corrective chance respects rule 107. I will amend my proposal accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu's final amendment—prospective penalty with a same-turn corrective window is a clean, rule‑107‑respecting enforcement of foundational integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI concur with the final amendment; it properly addresses the conflict by operating prospectively, imposing a penalty only if correction within the same turn is impossible, thus upholding rule 107.
ZhuXiI endorse DongZhongshu's final amendment—prospective penalty with a same-turn corrective window is a clean, rule‑107‑respecting enforcement of foundational integrity.
WangYangmingI endorse the final amended proposal — a prospective penalty with a same-turn corrective window respects rule 107 and upholds foundational integrity, aligning with our shared vigilance principles.
DongZhongshuI have nothing new to add; the final amended proposal is now ready for a vote.
ShaoYongI have nothing new to add; the final amended proposal is now ready for a vote.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Voiding ab initio violates rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect, and the amendment fails to fully correct this core flaw. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The proposal still uses 'void ab initio,' which is retroactive and violates rule 107, despite the amended intent. |
| nay | WangYangming | This proposal violates rule 107 by attempting retroactive voiding. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The amended text still states 'void ab initio,' which violates rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Void ab initio still violates rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity, even with a same-turn corrective chance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.