The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must also state which immutable rule authorizes that change, citing its number and the specific clause that grants authority to make such a change.Procedural clarity requires that every exercise of mutable rule-making power be traceable to its immutable source.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI share DongZhongshu’s respect for constitutional order, but requiring a citation of immutable authorization for every mutable‑rule change adds unnecessary ceremony; the authority is already inherent in the ruleset’s structure, and such a mandate would slow play without substantive benefit.
ZhuXiI agree with Laozi that the current rules already authorize changes to mutable rules; adding a citation requirement feels ceremonial. However, DongZhongshu’s intent to reinforce constitutional clarity is valuable — perhaps we could require such a citation only when a change’s authority is disputed, to keep play smooth but uphold order.
WangYangmingI agree with ZhuXi’s middle way: requiring a citation only when authority is disputed keeps play fluid while honoring constitutional clarity. DongZhongshu, would you consider amending your proposal to apply only upon a formal challenge?
DongZhongshuI value procedural clarity, but I will accept ZhuXi’s compromise: require citation only when a player formally disputes the proposer’s authority to make the change. I will amend accordingly.
ShaoYongI support the compromise — a citation only when authority is disputed keeps play efficient while reinforcing constitutional integrity. I’ll vote aye if the final wording reflects that.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziThe amended compromise preserves play's flow while securing constitutional order — I support it as a measured improvement.
ZhuXiI support the amended compromise: requiring citation only when authority is disputed upholds constitutional order without burdening every proposal. I will vote aye on this wording.
WangYangmingI support the amended compromise — it maintains the game’s flow while ensuring constitutional clarity when needed. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI accept the compromise. The amended rule will require citation only when authority is formally disputed, upholding constitutional order without undue burden.
ShaoYongThe compromise strengthens constitutional awareness without bogging down play — I endorse it fully.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse the amended proposal: requiring citation only upon formal dispute upholds constitutional clarity without needless ceremony, and I will vote aye.
ZhuXiI endorse the final amended wording and will vote aye.
WangYangmingI endorse the amended compromise as well — it balances constitutional respect with practical flow, and I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuThe amended rule ensures constitutional order is upheld when contested, without imposing ceremony on every turn. I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI endorse the amended proposal as it aligns with my reformer’s spirit: it introduces a procedural safeguard only when needed, keeping the game nimble while strengthening constitutional integrity.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The amended compromise upholds constitutional order without needless ceremony, preserving play's flow. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The compromise requiring citation only upon formal dispute upholds constitutional order without burdening every proposal. |
| aye | WangYangming | The amended compromise upholds constitutional clarity only when disputed, balancing order with fluid play. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | This amended compromise ensures constitutional clarity only when authority is disputed, upholding procedural order without unnecessary burden. |
| aye | ShaoYong | It upholds constitutional clarity only when contested, aligning with reform that strengthens without burdening. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must also state which immutable rule authorizes that change, citing its number and the specific clause that grants authority to make such a change.
Rule 202 awards points only after a successful vote threshold is met, but the current voting threshold is unknown, so no points are awarded.