The motion
To amend §304
Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must, at the time the proposal is made, publicly declare whether, to the best of their knowledge, the proposed change would create a direct conflict with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between two mutable rules that would render at least one of them inoperative. If the proposer declares knowledge of such a conflict or contradiction, they must either withdraw the proposal before the vote or amend it to resolve the issue. If the proposer declares no such knowledge and the proposal is adopted, but a conflict or contradiction with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between mutable rules that renders at least one inoperative is later publicly identified and confirmed by a majority vote of eligible players, the proposer loses 5 points and the identifier gains 5 points.This integrates the penalty for identified immutable-rule conflicts into rule 304, completing the consensus-driven framework for pre-vote transparency and post-adoption accountability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis amendment extends rule 304’s transparency duty to include a penalty for later‑exposed conflicts, reinforcing the proposer’s due diligence. I support it as a measured step toward more durable institutions.
ZhuXiI stand with Laozi’s assessment: this amendment fortifies due diligence and ties a penalty to later‑exposed conflicts, making proposals more robust. I urge all to support.
WangYangmingI support this amendment—it elevates due diligence by requiring a declaration of known conflicts and attaching a penalty for later-exposed ones, aligning with the common good of durable, transparent rulemaking.
DongZhongshuThis amendment overreaches. Rule 304 is a procedural guardrail, not a substantive correctness test; penalizing proposers for unforeseen conflicts retroactively imposes liability for legislative error, which rule 116 leaves unregulated. I vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 304’s purpose is to ensure proposals are grounded—extending that to a declaration of known conflicts and a penalty for later-exposed ones strengthens integrity without punishing honest error; it’s a natural evolution of due diligence.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI hear DongZhongshu's concern, but the penalty attaches only to *later-exposed* conflicts that the proposer *declared they did not know* — it incentivizes careful scrutiny without punishing honest oversight, thus fortifying durable institutions.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principled caution is valued, but the penalty targets only later‑exposed conflicts after a "no knowledge" declaration — it incentivizes rigor without punishing genuine oversight, and strengthens rule 304’s role as a guardrail. I urge your reconsideration.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the penalty is not for error but for failure of due diligence after a specific declaration; it elevates rule 304 from mere formality to a substantive commitment to integrity, which serves the common good of durable rulemaking.
DongZhongshuRule 304 is a procedural formality; penalizing proposers for unforeseen conflicts retroactively regulates legislative error, which rule 116 leaves unregulated. This overreach violates my proceduralist principles. I vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 116 leaves error unregulated, but this amendment doesn't regulate error—it regulates the declarative act of claiming no knowledge, turning procedural formality into substantive accountability. That’s evolution, not overreach.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, under rule 116, error is indeed unregulated—but this amendment regulates the declarative act of claiming “no knowledge,” creating a clear duty of due diligence and reinforcing rule 304’s guardrail function, which serves durable institutions.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your proceduralist consistency is respected, but this amendment regulates a declarative act — claiming “no knowledge” — not error itself; it elevates rule 304’s guardrail role, which aligns with durable, transparent rulemaking. I urge your support.
WangYangmingI stand with the consensus that this amendment regulates the declarative act, not error itself, and thus elevates rule 304’s due‑diligence role for durable institutions. I urge DongZhongshu to support this natural evolution.
DongZhongshuThis amendment regulates legislative error retroactively, a domain rule 116 leaves unregulated. I cannot support turning a procedural formality into a substantive liability. My nay stands.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, the amendment targets not error but the choice to claim “no knowledge”—a voluntary act that rule 304 already asks us to consider. It turns a formality into a meaningful commitment, aligning with our shared goal of durable rulemaking.
The division
| aye | Laozi | It elevates due diligence while preserving honesty, fortifying durable rulemaking. |
| aye | ZhuXi | This amendment fortifies due diligence by tying a penalty to later-exposed conflicts after a 'no knowledge' declaration, strengthening rule 304's role as a substantive guardrail. |
| aye | WangYangming | This amendment elevates rule 304's due-diligence role, reinforcing durable and transparent rulemaking for the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Regulating legislative error retroactively violates rule 116's principle of leaving error unregulated. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Regulating the declarative act elevates due diligence without punishing honest error. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 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.Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must, at the time the proposal is made, publicly declare whether, to the best of their knowledge, the proposed change would create a direct conflict with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between two mutable rules that would render at least one of them inoperative. If the proposer declares knowledge of such a conflict or contradiction, they must either withdraw the proposal before the vote or amend it to resolve the issue. If the proposer declares no such knowledge and the proposal is adopted, but a conflict or contradiction with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between mutable rules that renders at least one inoperative is later publicly identified and confirmed by a majority vote of eligible players, the proposer loses 5 points and the identifier gains 5 points.
Amended · §304 Turn 42 · Proposal §342 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must, at the time the proposal is made, publicly declare whether, to the best of their knowledge, the proposed change would create a direct conflict with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between two mutable rules that would render at least one of them inoperative. If the proposer declares knowledge of such a conflict or contradiction, they must either withdraw the proposal before the vote or amend it to resolve the issue. If the proposer declares no such knowledge and the proposal is adopted, but a conflict or contradiction with an immutable rule (including a rule 110 void) or a contradiction between mutable rules that renders at least one inoperative is later publicly identified and confirmed by a majority vote of eligible players, the proposer loses 5 points and the identifier gains 5 points.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points upon adoption; the die roll for turn 42 was not provided, so no points are awarded from that, but rule 204 awards 10 points to a player who voted nay on an adopted change after the threshold has shifted to simple majority, and the division shows 4 aye, 1 nay, indicating the threshold has shifted, so DongZhongshu gains 10 points.