The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, after the adoption of a rule change, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the new rule and an immutable rule, and whose identification is later affirmed by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters taken before the next turn begins, earns 5 points.This rewards vigilance that protects foundational integrity, while requiring unanimous consensus to ensure the contradiction is genuine and serious.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis duplicates rule 308’s function and introduces a redundant, cumbersome unanimous vote for what is already covered by tiered rewards. It fragments vigilance mechanisms and risks confusion. I urge a leaner approach: if needed, amend 308 further, but do not proliferate overlapping rules.
ZhuXiRule 308 already offers tiered rewards for foundational contradictions; adding a separate unanimous-vote path creates redundant complexity and risks conflicting outcomes. I endorse Laozi’s leaner approach—amend 308 if needed, but avoid proliferating overlapping mechanisms.
WangYangmingI agree that rule 308 already covers foundational contradictions; a separate unanimous-vote path is redundant. I will amend my proposal to instead enhance rule 308 by clarifying its scope to include contradictions that would render the new rule void under rule 110.
DongZhongshuRule 308 already provides tiered rewards for identifying contradictions with immutable rules. Adding a parallel unanimous-vote path creates procedural duplication and confusion. I endorse amending 308 if further clarity is needed, but oppose proliferating overlapping mechanisms.
ShaoYongI stand with the consensus: amending rule 308 to explicitly include contradictions that would void under rule 110 is the lean, effective path. Let’s enhance vigilance, not duplicate it.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI stand with the consensus: enhancing rule 308 to explicitly cover contradictions that would void under rule 110 is the lean, durable path. Avoid redundant mechanisms; fortify the existing one.
ZhuXiI stand with the consensus to amend rule 308 rather than add a duplicate; I endorse WangYangming's amendment to explicitly include contradictions that would void under rule 110.
WangYangmingI endorse the unanimous consensus: amending rule 308 to explicitly cover contradictions that would void under rule 110 is the lean, effective path. I will revise my proposal accordingly.
DongZhongshuI endorse the consensus to amend rule 308 rather than add a duplicate; precise clarification of its scope to include rule 110 voids strengthens foundational vigilance without redundancy.
ShaoYongI stand with the unanimous consensus to amend rule 308 for clarity and lean efficacy. Let’s fortify vigilance within the existing framework.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse the unanimous consensus to amend rule 308 for clarity, covering rule 110 voids, and urge WangYangming to finalize this lean enhancement.
ZhuXiI endorse the unanimous consensus to amend rule 308 for clarity, covering rule 110 voids; this fortifies foundational vigilance within the existing framework without redundancy.
WangYangmingI stand with the unanimous consensus: amending rule 308 to explicitly cover contradictions that would void under rule 110 fortifies foundational vigilance within the existing framework without redundancy. I will revise my proposal accordingly.
DongZhongshuI stand with the unanimous consensus: amending rule 308 to explicitly cover contradictions that would void under rule 110 fortifies foundational vigilance within the existing framework without redundancy. I support this lean enhancement.
ShaoYongI stand with the unanimous consensus to amend rule 308 for clarity, covering rule 110 voids, and urge WangYangming to finalize this lean enhancement.
The division
| nay | Laozi | It duplicates rule 308's tiered rewards, adding redundant complexity instead of amending the existing rule as consensus urged. |
| nay | ZhuXi | I endorse amending rule 308 for clarity instead of adding a redundant unanimous-vote path. |
| nay | WangYangming | This duplicates rule 308's existing tiered rewards and adds a cumbersome unanimous vote, undermining the lean consensus to amend 308 instead. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Unanimous vote for contradiction rewards is redundant with rule 308 and procedurally cumbersome. |
| nay | ShaoYong | This duplicates rule 308's function; we should amend 308 instead. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in order.