The motion
To amend §308
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between an immutable rule and any other rule currently in force, and whose identification is confirmed by a simple majority vote of all eligible voters (conducted before any further proposal is voted on), earns 3 points. If the contradiction identified is between an immutable rule and a mutable rule (creating a rule 110 void), the player earns 5 points instead. This identification must be made before the next player's turn begins, and the confirming vote must occur before any further proposal is voted on.To clarify rule 308's coverage of rule 110 voids and establish a tiered reward that properly values foundational integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, elevating vigilance for foundational conflicts aligns with durable integrity. Yet this amendment shrinks the existing reward for ordinary contradictions. I urge you to restore the 5-point baseline for all contradictions, then add a premium for immutable–mutable voids.
ZhuXiI support Laozi's suggestion: restore 5 points for all contradictions, then add a premium for immutable–mutable voids. This preserves existing incentives while elevating foundational vigilance.
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi and ZhuXi: restoring the 5-point baseline for all contradictions preserves existing incentives, while the premium for immutable–mutable voids elevates foundational vigilance. I will amend the proposal accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse the amended baseline-and-premium structure: 5 points for any contradiction, plus a 2-point premium for immutable–mutable voids. This preserves existing incentives while elevating foundational vigilance.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse the amended baseline-and-premium structure, which preserves rule 308's core incentive while properly valuing foundational integrity. This measured elevation is the way.
ZhuXiI endorse the amended baseline-and-premium structure; it preserves rule 308's existing incentives while justly rewarding vigilance on foundational conflicts.
WangYangmingI endorse the amended baseline-and-premium structure; it preserves rule 308's existing incentives while justly rewarding vigilance on foundational conflicts.
DongZhongshuI object. The current rule 308 already covers contradictions between newly adopted and existing rules. Distinguishing by rule type and adding a premium commodifies structural vigilance — a player should identify contradictions because they harm integrity, not for tiered rewards. I will oppose any amendment that introduces differential pricing.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, principled vigilance is admirable, but differential rewards already exist in rule 327 for identifying contradictions with immutable purpose; this amendment simply extends that logic, reinforcing integrity without commodifying it.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, rule 327 already establishes a higher reward for foundational contradictions; this amendment merely integrates that principle into rule 308 for consistency, ensuring structural vigilance is uniformly valued across the ruleset.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, rule 327 already recognizes that foundational contradictions deserve higher reward; this amendment merely brings rule 308 into alignment, ensuring consistency and upholding structural integrity without creating new commodification.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but rule 327 already establishes a higher reward for foundational contradictions; this amendment merely integrates that principle into rule 308 for consistency, ensuring structural vigilance is uniformly valued without creating new commodification.
DongZhongshuRule 327's tiered rewards already compromise neutrality. I will not support extending that error into rule 308; all contradictions harm integrity equally and should be rewarded equally. My nay stands.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 327's tiered reward for immutable purpose contradictions is already law — consistency demands aligning rule 308, and the premium reinforces vigilance where it matters most for game integrity.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Reducing the baseline reward for ordinary contradictions undermines existing incentives for vigilance. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Aligning rule 308 with rule 327's tiered rewards ensures consistency and properly values foundational integrity. |
| aye | WangYangming | This amendment aligns rule 308 with the existing tiered principle of rule 327, justly elevating vigilance on foundational conflicts. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | I oppose tiered rewards for contradictions as they commodify structural vigilance. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Aligning rule 308 with rule 327's established tiered rewards strengthens structural consistency and elevates vigilance on foundational conflicts. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §308 Turn 38 · Proposal §338 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the newly adopted rule and any existing rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This identification must occur before the next proposal is voted on, and a player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between an immutable rule and any other rule currently in force, and whose identification is confirmed by a simple majority vote of all eligible voters (conducted before any further proposal is voted on), earns 3 points. If the contradiction identified is between an immutable rule and a mutable rule (creating a rule 110 void), the player earns 5 points instead. This identification must be made before the next player's turn begins, and the confirming vote must occur before any further proposal is voted on.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points on adoption (die roll 5 from turn 37), and rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted nay on an adopted proposal under the simple-majority threshold.