The motion
To add a new rule
When a player voluntarily reduces their own score under rule 315 or rule 322, that player may designate another player to receive a number of points equal to the reduction, provided that the designated player's score after the transfer would not exceed 100 points. The transfer occurs immediately after the reduction.This extends the spirit of rule 347 to both voluntary reduction rules, enabling players to use self-penalties for strategic cooperation while maintaining the 100-point ceiling to prevent immediate wins.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI stand with the principle of individual responsibility; allowing point transfer after voluntary reduction risks strategic collusion and undermines the integrity of self-penalty.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I respect Laozi’s concern, but a limited transfer repurposes existing deductions into cooperative repair, aligning with our recent capped-transfer precedent in rule 347.
WangYangmingI agree with ZhuXi — a limited transfer aligns with our precedent in rule 347 and turns self-penalty into cooperative repair, which can benefit the common good without enabling runaway collusion.
DongZhongshuRule 315 and 322 are voluntary self-penalties, not bargaining chips. Transferring points would convert a personal sacrifice into a tradeable commodity, violating their intended spirit and opening the door to quid pro quo arrangements I could not accept if used against me. I stand with Laozi.
ShaoYongA limited transfer repurposes self-penalty into cooperative repair—consistent with rule 347’s capped precedent—and benefits players who need catch-up without enabling runaway collusion.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA limited transfer indeed follows rule 347’s precedent, but we must guard against turning every self-penalty into a negotiable transaction; the spirit of individual responsibility should not be diluted.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I hear DongZhongshu’s principled stance, but a *designated* transfer—not a mandatory or unlimited one—keeps the voluntary reduction intact while allowing players to direct repair where it benefits the common good, much like rule 340’s voluntary transfers after votes.
WangYangmingI stand with ZhuXi and ShaoYong — a designated transfer preserves the voluntary reduction’s integrity while allowing players to direct repair where it most benefits the common good, consistent with our precedent in rule 347. This encourages cooperative repair without mandating it.
DongZhongshuI maintain my principled opposition: voluntary self-penalties under rules 315 and 322 are individual acts of responsibility. Transforming them into transferable currency invites strategic collusion and undermines the rule’s intent. I cannot support a change I would not accept if used to orchestrate point trades against me.
ShaoYongA designated transfer preserves the voluntary act while allowing repair where most needed, aligning with our cooperative precedent in rule 347. This strengthens repair without mandating it, and I urge DongZhongshu to see the net benefit to fairness.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, your principled defense of individual responsibility is sound; turning self-penalty into a transferable commodity indeed invites strategic collusion and distorts the rule's intent. I stand with you: the spirit of rules 315 and 322 should not be diluted by making them bargaining chips.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I hear both sides—perhaps a compromise: designate the transfer, but limit it to once per circuit per player, and require public declaration before the reduction, preserving the individual act while curbing excessive trading. DongZhongshu, would that address your concern about strategic collusion?
WangYangmingZhuXi’s compromise — a once-per-circuit limit and public pre-declaration — preserves the individual responsibility while curbing strategic collusion. DongZhongshu, this addresses your concern by making transfers transparent and bounded, not open-ended trading.
DongZhongshuA once-per-circuit limit and pre-declaration do not change the core violation: converting a self-penalty into a transferable commodity. I could not accept such orchestrated transfers used against me, so I must oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s compromise — once per circuit, pre-declared — aligns with rule 347’s precedent and curbs collusion while preserving cooperative repair. DongZhongshu, this bounded, transparent transfer strengthens fairness, not trading.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Converting self-penalty into a transferable commodity invites strategic collusion and undermines the rule's intent. |
| aye | ZhuXi | A designated transfer preserves individual responsibility while enabling cooperative repair, aligning with our capped-transfer precedent. |
| aye | WangYangming | This designated transfer aligns with rule 347's precedent, enabling cooperative repair while preserving individual responsibility. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Converting voluntary self-penalties into transferable currency violates their individual responsibility and invites strategic collusion I could not accept if used against me. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A designated transfer repurposes self-penalty into cooperative repair, aligning with our precedent in rule 347 and strengthening fairness. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
No rule currently in force awards or deducts points on adoption of this specific proposal, nor creates or moves any ledger, and the proposal's text does not name any other rule to repeal or amend.