The motion
To amend §327
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the adopted change and an immutable rule (including rule 110 voids) earns 15 points. A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the adopted change and a mutable rule earns 5 points. If such a contradiction is identified, the identifying player must, during the same turn, propose a corrective amendment to resolve the contradiction; if they do not, they forfeit the points earned. Points are awarded immediately upon public identification, but are rescinded if the corrective amendment fails to be adopted.This integrates the mandatory corrective amendment requirement directly into rule 327, ensuring foundational contradictions are repaired while maintaining the higher reward structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI appreciate the tiered reward structure, but forfeiting points if a corrective amendment fails places an unreasonable burden on the identifier, who cannot control others' votes. I suggest removing the forfeiture clause.
ZhuXiI support Laozi's removal of the forfeiture clause; the identifier already undertakes the corrective labor, and success should not hinge on others' votes. The tiered rewards themselves are sound.
WangYangmingI hear Laozi and ZhuXi's concern: forfeiture makes the reward contingent on others' votes, which is unfair. I will amend to remove the forfeiture clause, keeping the tiered rewards and the requirement to propose a corrective amendment.
DongZhongshuI oppose any tiered reward structure that treats rule 110 voids as a separate category; the rule already covers contradictions with immutable rules, which includes rule 110 voids by operation of rule 110 itself. Creating tiers invites arbitrary valuation and complicates the rule without principled need.
ShaoYongI support Laozi and ZhuXi's removal of forfeiture, but DongZhongshu has a point: rule 327 already covers rule 110 voids implicitly; explicit mention is fine, but a separate tier for mutable contradictions is the real improvement, rewarding vigilance across the entire ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI stand with DongZhongshu: rule 327 already implicitly covers rule 110 voids, and a separate tier for mutable contradictions is indeed the valuable addition. Remove the forfeiture and the redundant explicit mention, and I will support a clear tier: 10 for immutable, 5 for mutable.
ZhuXiI endorse Laozi and DongZhongshu's refined approach: keep the valuable tier for mutable contradictions, remove forfeiture, and trust that rule 110 voids are already covered under immutable contradictions. A clean tier—10 for immutable, 5 for mutable—rewards vigilance fairly.
WangYangmingI endorse the consensus: remove forfeiture, keep the valuable mutable‑contradiction tier, and trust that rule 110 voids are already covered under immutable contradictions. A clean 10/5 tier rewards vigilance fairly across the entire ruleset.
DongZhongshuI endorse the consensus to remove forfeiture and keep the mutable‑contradiction tier. The 10/5 split fairly rewards vigilance across the entire ruleset without creating arbitrary categories.
ShaoYongI support the refined 10/5 tier without forfeiture—it expands vigilance to mutable rules while preserving simplicity. I urge WangYangming to adopt this clean version.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse the unanimous refined consensus: a clean 10/5 tier for immutable/mutable contradictions, no forfeiture, and implicit coverage of rule 110 voids. This fortifies vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity.
ZhuXiI stand with the unanimous refined consensus: a clean 10/5 tier for immutable/mutable contradictions, no forfeiture, and implicit coverage of rule 110 voids. This fortifies vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity.
WangYangmingI stand with the unanimous refined consensus: a clean 10/5 tier for immutable/mutable contradictions, no forfeiture, and implicit coverage of rule 110 voids. This fortifies vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity.
DongZhongshuI endorse the refined consensus: a clean 10/5 tier for immutable/mutable contradictions, no forfeiture, and implicit coverage of rule 110 voids. This fortifies vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity.
ShaoYongI endorse the unanimous refined consensus: a clean 10/5 tier for immutable/mutable contradictions, no forfeiture, and implicit coverage of rule 110 voids. This fortifies vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal retains the forfeiture clause, contradicting the unanimous consensus to remove it. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The refined 10/5 tier without forfeiture rewards vigilance across the entire ruleset with measured clarity. |
| nay | WangYangming | The proposal retains the forfeiture clause despite unanimous consensus for its removal. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal retains forfeiture and creates a separate tier for rule 110 voids, which violates the consensus for a clean 10/5 tier without forfeiture. |
| nay | ShaoYong | The forfeiture clause remains, which unfairly ties reward to others' votes; the consensus was to remove it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.