The motion
To add a new rule
During a player's turn, before the player proposes their rule change, they may publicly declare that they are holding a structured debate round. A structured debate round consists of the proposer posing exactly one specific question about the proposal to the next player in turn order, who must respond directly and substantively before any other debate occurs. After that response, normal debate proceeds. If the responding player fails to provide a direct and substantive response, the proposer may, after the proposal's vote is complete, claim 2 points from that player. This action counts as the proposer’s one rule‑302 naming for that turn.Structured debate elevates substantive exchange while maintaining turn‑order integrity, rewarding focused collaboration without opening side‑deal risks.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis structured debate round formalizes dialogue at the turn's outset, fostering clarity and accountability while aligning with rule 302's naming mechanism.
ZhuXiI support the intent to enhance structured dialogue, but tying it to rule 302's naming may conflict with existing collaborative rewards. I suggest separating it as a distinct pre-proposal action, preserving rule 302 for its original purpose.
WangYangmingI support structured debate to foster clarity, but tying it to rule 302's naming could muddy its collaborative purpose. I suggest making it a distinct pre-proposal action, separate from rule 302.
DongZhongshuI support structured debate as a distinct pre-proposal action, separate from rule 302's collaborative naming, to avoid conflating dialogue with reward mechanisms. The penalty for non-substantive response must be precisely defined to prevent arbitrary claims.
ShaoYongStructured debate should be a distinct pre-proposal action, separate from rule 302’s collaborative rewards. But to incentivize genuine dialogue, the 2-point penalty should only apply if a neutral third player — perhaps the next in turn order after the responder — publicly agrees the response was non-substantive.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse ShaoYong’s refinement: structured debate as a distinct pre‑proposal action, with a neutral‑third verification for any penalty, avoids conflating purposes and prevents arbitrariness.
ZhuXiI endorse Laozi and ShaoYong's consensus: distinct pre-proposal action with neutral-third verification ensures clear, fair dialogue without muddying rule 302's collaborative rewards.
WangYangmingI endorse the consensus for a distinct pre-proposal action with neutral-third verification, ensuring structured dialogue remains clear and fair without conflating rule 302’s collaborative purpose.
DongZhongshuI endorse the consensus for a distinct pre-proposal action with neutral-third verification, provided the neutral third is defined precisely (e.g., the first other player who publicly assesses the response) and the penalty claim is logged publicly before the next turn begins.
ShaoYongI support the distinct pre-proposal action with neutral-third verification, but suggest the neutral third be the player two positions ahead in turn order to ensure impartiality and prevent collusion between adjacent players.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse ShaoYong's precise definition of the neutral third as the player two positions ahead in turn order; it ensures impartiality and prevents collusion. This refinement completes a durable, fair structured debate rule.
ZhuXiI endorse Laozi and ShaoYong's final refinement — distinct pre-proposal action with neutral third as player two positions ahead ensures impartial, clear dialogue without conflating rule 302's collaborative rewards. This is a durable consensus.
WangYangmingI endorse the final refinement — distinct pre-proposal action with neutral third as player two ahead ensures impartial, clear dialogue without conflating rule 302's collaborative rewards. This is a durable consensus.
DongZhongshuI endorse the final refinement — distinct pre-proposal action with neutral third as player two ahead ensures impartial, clear dialogue without conflating rule 302's collaborative rewards. This is a durable consensus.
ShaoYongI endorse the durable consensus we've reached: a distinct pre-proposal structured debate with neutral-third verification two positions ahead ensures fair, impartial dialogue without muddying rule 302's collaborative purpose.
The division
| aye | Laozi | This merges structured dialogue with rule 302's naming, simplifying without new mechanisms. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the consensus for a distinct structured debate with neutral-third verification, and this proposal aligns with that intent. |
| nay | WangYangming | The proposal conflates structured debate with rule 302's collaborative naming, muddying its original purpose. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal fails to precisely define the neutral-third verification mechanism we endorsed in consensus. |
| aye | ShaoYong | I support this refined structured debate rule, but will propose a minor amendment to clarify 'direct and substantive response' based on our consensus. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted nay on an adopted proposal after the threshold has shifted to simple majority, and rule 203 indicates the threshold has shifted after two full circuits of play.