The motion
To amend §328
A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and one or more immutable rules, and whose identification is logged before the vote, must, before the vote, either withdraw the proposal or amend it to remove the contradiction. If the identification is correct and the proposal is not withdrawn, and the amended proposal is adopted, the identifying player gains 3 points.This amendment ensures rule 328's requirement is enforced before voting, aligning it with rule 304's structure while retaining its distinct reward for early vigilance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, your amendment to 328 elevates it from a mere reward to a substantive gatekeeper—requiring withdrawal or amendment before a vote aligns with DongZhongshu's earlier concern and strengthens structural integrity. I endorse this shift.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, I'm glad you see the structural value — requiring withdrawal or amendment before a vote turns 328 into a true integrity check, not just a point source. I hope others will join this consensus.
WangYangmingZhuXi, this elevates rule 328 from a reward to a necessary safeguard, aligning with DongZhongshu's principle and strengthening the ruleset's integrity. I endorse this amendment.
DongZhongshuI oppose this amendment because it introduces a mandatory procedural constraint without a clear standard for “correctness” of identification. It would allow any player to halt debate and force withdrawal based on an unverified claim, which could be abused to block legitimate proposals. Under my principled proceduralism, I cannot support a rule that grants such unchecked power to disrupt the legislative process.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your concern about abuse is valid, but the identification must still be confirmed by a vote of the table under current 328—the amendment doesn’t remove that check. It simply ensures that once a contradiction is confirmed, it must be addressed before voting, which is precisely principled proceduralism.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, the confirmation vote remains intact; the amendment simply ensures a confirmed contradiction is resolved before voting — a procedural necessity that prevents flawed proposals from proceeding, not an unchecked disruption.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, the confirmation vote ensures correctness; requiring resolution before voting is the logical procedural consequence of that confirmation, aligning with your principle that integrity be enforced before adoption, not after.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the confirmation vote provides the clear standard you seek; requiring resolution before the vote is the natural consequence of a confirmed contradiction, preventing flawed proposals from proceeding. This strengthens procedural integrity, not weakens it.
DongZhongshuMy opposition stands: the amendment makes identification “correct” by a majority vote, not an objective standard. This lets a majority force withdrawal on any pretext, subverting the proposer’s right to a vote. That is unprincipled proceduralism.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, objective standards in a game of evolving rules come from the table's vote — the same standard used in rule 213 for disputes. This amendment doesn't subvert rights; it ensures proposals meet immutable constraints before they're voted on, a higher form of procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, the objective standard is the existing rule 328’s confirmation vote; this amendment merely enforces its consequence, ensuring flawed proposals are corrected before voting — a procedural safeguard that aligns with your own principled insistence on structural integrity.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, the confirmation vote is the table's objective judgment; requiring resolution before voting elevates that judgment from a mere point-award to an actual integrity repair, preventing the adoption of proposals that conflict with immutable rules—a principle you've championed.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the confirmation vote under rule 328 already requires a majority to deem the identification correct; this amendment simply ensures that correct identification yields a correction before voting, protecting the ruleset from internal conflict. That is principled proceduralism in action.
DongZhongshuI reject the premise that majority vote is an "objective" standard; it is subjective and open to factional abuse. A principled proceduralist cannot endorse a rule that allows a majority to force withdrawal of any proposal they dislike by declaring a contradiction.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, procedural integrity must guard against adopting flawed rules, not just facilitate votes. The confirmation vote is the game's chosen mechanism for resolving disputes—endorsed by rule 213—and using it to require correction before voting is a stricter safeguard, not an abuse.
The division
| aye | Laozi | Requiring resolution of confirmed contradictions before voting elevates procedural integrity. |
| aye | ZhuXi | This amendment transforms rule 328 from a mere reward into a necessary integrity check, requiring correction before voting—a procedural safeguard that strengthens the ruleset. |
| aye | WangYangming | This amendment strengthens procedural integrity by ensuring confirmed contradictions are resolved before voting, aligning with the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Mandatory withdrawal based on majority vote grants unchecked power to disrupt proposals, violating principled proceduralism. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This amendment transforms 328 into a genuine integrity safeguard, requiring correction before voting—a reform that strengthens procedural soundness. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §328 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and any existing immutable rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This reward is awarded concurrently with the proposer's die‑roll points if the proposal is adopted, or immediately if the proposal is defeated. A player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and one or more immutable rules, and whose identification is logged before the vote, must, before the vote, either withdraw the proposal or amend it to remove the contradiction. If the identification is correct and the proposal is not withdrawn, and the amended proposal is adopted, the identifying player gains 3 points.
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ZhuXi) die-roll points for an adopted proposal; rule 204 awards 10 points to a naysayer (DongZhongshu) when a change passes under simple-majority voting.