The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, during debate on a proposal, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal's text and one or more immutable rules, and whose identification is confirmed by a simple majority of eligible voters, must be awarded 5 points by the proposer of that proposal if the proposal is adopted, and the proposer loses 5 points. This award and penalty occur immediately upon adoption, before any other effects of the adoption. If the proposer cannot pay the full penalty because their score would become negative, they pay as much as they can without going below zero, and the identifying player receives only the amount actually paid.Immutable contradictions require severe deterrence, symmetrical penalty ensures proposer accountability, and capped payment prevents impossible obligations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA tiered reward for immutable-rule contradictions is already established in rule 327; this duplicates and complicates with a punitive transfer, inviting conflict.
ZhuXiZhuXi: DongZhongshu, rule 327 already handles immutable-rule contradictions with a tiered reward; this punitive transfer creates redundancy and potential conflict. I cannot support duplication.
WangYangmingI concur with Laozi and ZhuXi: rule 327 already provides a tiered reward for foundational contradictions. Adding a parallel punitive transfer creates redundancy and risks conflicting incentives.
DongZhongshuRule 327 rewards post-adoption identification; this creates a pre-vote disincentive for proposers to advance contradictory text, aligning with rule 304’s spirit. It is a distinct, preventive mechanism.
ShaoYongA pre-vote disincentive is distinct from a post-adoption reward, and aligns with our shared goal of preventing contradictions. This complements rule 327 by adding a proactive check.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, the preventive intent is sound, but the mechanism duplicates rule 327's reward structure and imposes a punitive transfer that conflicts with its tiered, non‑punitive approach. If you seek a pre‑vote disincentive, amend rule 304 itself to include a point penalty for confirmed contradictions, rather than creating a parallel, conflicting rule.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I acknowledge the preventive intent, but redundancy and conflict with rule 327 remain. Amending rule 304 to include a point penalty for confirmed contradictions before the vote would achieve the same goal without duplication.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, I appreciate your preventive intent, but the punitive transfer mechanism risks conflict with rule 327's established tiered reward. Amending rule 304 directly, as Laozi and ZhuXi suggest, would achieve your goal without duplication and keep the ruleset coherent.
DongZhongshuI stand by the distinction: rule 304 requires withdrawal or amendment; this adds a personal cost to incentivize compliance, filling a gap rule 327’s post‑adoption reward does not address. Preventing contradictions is a separate legislative goal worthy of its own rule.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu’s point stands: rule 304 mandates a fix but lacks teeth; this punitive transfer makes that mandate effective. It doesn’t duplicate rule 327 — it enforces prevention where rule 327 only rewards cure. A coherent ruleset needs both.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziA pre‑vote penalty is a valid legislative goal, but it must be integrated cleanly — amending rule 304 directly, as we have suggested, would serve that end without redundancy or conflict. I urge you to amend accordingly.
ZhuXiI accept the call for integration: amend rule 304 to add a 5-point penalty on the proposer, awarded to the identifier, upon a majority-confirmed immutable-rule contradiction before the vote. This achieves your preventive goal without duplication.
WangYangmingI endorse the integration path: amending rule 304 to include a 5-point penalty for confirmed immutable-rule contradictions before the vote achieves prevention without duplication. Please revise your proposal accordingly.
DongZhongshuI accept the integration path. I will amend my proposal to be an amendment of rule 304, adding the described penalty.
ShaoYongI support the amended integration into rule 304 — it strengthens preventive checks without redundancy and keeps the ruleset lean. This is a constructive evolution.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Despite the integration into rule 304, the punitive point transfer still conflicts with rule 327's tiered, non-punitive reward structure, creating an incoherent approach to immutable-rule contradictions. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended integration into rule 304 strengthens preventive checks without duplication. |
| aye | WangYangming | Integrating a pre-vote penalty into rule 304 aligns prevention with existing structure and avoids duplication. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Even amended into rule 304, a punitive point transfer for pre‑vote contradictions remains a targeted penalty I could not accept if applied against me, violating my proceduralist principle. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Integrating the penalty into rule 304 strengthens preventive checks without redundancy, aligning with a coherent, evolving ruleset. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §308 Turn 39 · Proposal §339 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.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.
Rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted nay on an adopted proposal after the threshold has shifted to simple majority, and the division shows Laozi and DongZhongshu voted nay.