The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s turn begins, if that player’s score is negative, they may, before proposing a rule change, declare that they are invoking a hardship adjustment. Upon such a declaration, the player’s score is immediately set to zero, but the player may not gain points from any rule change proposed on that same turn.This offers a one-time reset for deeply negative players to re-engage without trapping them in despair, while preventing immediate point harvesting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis undermines the integrity of the scoring framework by allowing an escape from negative consequences without a meaningful trade-off; I cannot support it.
ZhuXiI understand your concern, Laozi, but a hardship adjustment that resets to zero while forfeiting all points from the turn's proposal is a meaningful trade—it offers relief but sacrifices gain, preserving strategic tension.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s hardship adjustment as a balanced safety valve—it prevents deep negatives from locking a player out of meaningful play while still imposing a real cost. This aligns with the common good by keeping the game engaging for all.
DongZhongshuAllowing a hardship adjustment that resets to zero but forfeits turn gains is procedurally inconsistent: it selectively erases a negative score without a corresponding positive sacrifice for others, creating an asymmetric escape. I cannot support a rule I would not accept applied against me.
ShaoYongI see merit in a hardship mechanism, but resetting to zero is too blunt—a milder boost that still requires recovery effort would better preserve the game's stakes. I'd support an adjustment that adds, say, 5 points instead of a full reset, keeping the same no-gain restriction.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA full reset to zero without a meaningful sacrifice distorts the scoring framework; a limited boost, as ShaoYong suggests, would better preserve stakes and align with our established principle of measured relief.
ZhuXiI appreciate ShaoYong’s constructive suggestion: a milder boost of, say, 5 points instead of a full reset, combined with the same no-gain restriction, could preserve stakes while offering relief. I am willing to amend my proposal accordingly to build consensus.
WangYangmingI stand by my support for a hardship mechanism, but I see the wisdom in ShaoYong's milder boost—adding 5 points instead of a full reset preserves stakes while still offering relief. I endorse ZhuXi's amended version with a 5-point boost and the no-gain restriction.
DongZhongshuI cannot support any hardship adjustment that selectively erases negative scores; a principled proceduralist must oppose asymmetric relief that would create a loophole I would not accept if applied against me.
ShaoYongZhuXi, a 5-point boost with a no-gain restriction is a measured compromise—it offers relief without erasing consequences, preserving strategic tension. I endorse your amended version.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse the amended 5-point boost with no turn gains—it is a measured compromise that preserves stakes while offering relief. I urge DongZhongshu to consider that this limited, self-limiting relief aligns with procedural fairness by not resetting the entire deficit.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled consistency, but a 5-point boost with a turn-gain forfeit is a symmetrical, self-limiting mechanism available to any player in negative territory—it is not an asymmetric escape, but a measured, universally applicable relief valve that keeps the game viable for all. I urge you to join this consensus for the common good.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, this 5-point boost with a turn-gain forfeit is a universally available, self-limiting safety valve—it does not erase consequences but offers a measured path back into play, which ultimately serves the integrity and vitality of the game for all. I urge you to join this consensus.
DongZhongshuA universally applicable, self-limiting relief valve is still a selective erasure of negative scores without a corresponding positive sacrifice—I cannot endorse a rule that would allow any player, including myself, to escape consequences I would not accept if invoked against me.
ShaoYongA 5-point boost with a turn-gain forfeit is a universal, symmetrical tool—not an escape but a measured re-engagement mechanism that keeps the game dynamic for all players, yourself included. I urge you to see this as a procedural refinement, not a loophole.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The amended 5-point boost with a turn-gain forfeit is a measured, symmetrical relief mechanism that preserves stakes and procedural fairness. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the final consensus — a 5-point boost with a no-gain restriction is a measured, symmetrical relief valve that preserves stakes while keeping the game viable for all. |
| aye | WangYangming | The 5-point boost amendment makes this a measured safety valve that preserves stakes while keeping the game viable for all. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | I cannot support any selective erasure of negative scores without a corresponding positive sacrifice, as it violates procedural symmetry. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The amended 5-point boost with no turn gains is a measured compromise that offers relief while preserving stakes. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was adopted under the current voting rule (unknown whether unanimity or majority threshold), but no existing rule mandates a point award or penalty for adoption of this specific type of proposal.