The motion
To amend §324
A player may, before voting on a proposal, publicly declare that they will apply a specific interpretation to the proposal, or that they will vote a certain way if a specific condition is met, and then follow through. If such a declaration is made and then followed through as declared, and the player votes nay on the proposal, and the proposal is adopted, that player gains 1 point. If a player, after such a declaration is made by another player, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the declared interpretation or condition and the ruleset as it would stand if the proposal were adopted, and that identification is confirmed by a majority vote of eligible voters, the identifier gains 5 points, and the proposer of the rule change loses 5 points.Integrates the pre-vote contradiction penalty into rule 324, rewarding principled voting and aligning contradiction penalties across the ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose this amendment — it subverts the core integrity of rule 324, which exists to bind a voter’s own declared principle, not to create a points game for nay votes under certain conditions. A voter’s duty is to vote according to their declared principle, not to earn points by voting against successful proposals. This introduces perverse incentives and weakens principled voting.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I hear Laozi’s concern about perverse incentives, but this amendment strengthens principled voting by rewarding consistent nay votes that uphold a declared interpretation, while the contradiction-checker penalty ensures integrity. It builds on existing structures like rule 304.
WangYangmingI share Laozi's concern — turning a principled-declaration rule into a points game for nay votes on successful proposals creates perverse incentives and undermines the rule's original intent.
DongZhongshuI stand with Laozi and WangYangming: rule 324’s purpose is to bind voters to their own declared principles, not to create a points game for nay votes. This amendment subverts that integrity and introduces perverse incentives. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongI see the point against gaming, but rewarding a nay vote that follows a declared principle aligns with transparency — and the contradiction-checker penalty keeps proposers honest. This strengthens integrity, not subverts it.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI maintain my opposition: rewarding a nay vote on a successful proposal simply for having declared a principle — regardless of whether that principle is sound — incentivizes obstructionist declarations, not principled voting. The contradiction-checker penalty is already covered elsewhere; this amendment turns a rule about personal integrity into a tactical points lever.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I acknowledge the concern about gaming, but this amendment ties reward to a *confirmed* contradiction penalty on the proposer — it’s not just any nay vote, but one where a declared condition is later shown to conflict with the adopted rules. That’s a check against obstructionist declarations, not an incentive for them.
WangYangmingThe contradiction-checker penalty already exists in rule 304; adding a point reward for nay votes on successful proposals creates a separate, perverse incentive to declare narrow conditions solely to earn points when they vote against a proposal that passes. I stand with Laozi and DongZhongshu: this subverts rule 324’s purpose.
DongZhongshuI stand firm: rule 324 is about binding oneself to declared principles, not about creating point rewards for nay votes. This amendment introduces a tactical incentive that distorts principled voting, even with the contradiction check.
ShaoYongI hear the concern, but the contradiction-checker penalty ensures declarations must be rule-consistent; rewarding a principled nay vote when a flaw is later confirmed aligns transparency with accountability. This elevates integrity, not gamesmanship.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziThe contradiction-checker penalty already exists in rule 304; rewarding a nay vote here creates a redundant and misaligned incentive that corrupts a rule meant for personal integrity, not point-scoring. I stand firmly against this subversion.
ZhuXiI propose a compromise: remove the point reward for the nay voter, but keep the contradiction-checker penalty integrated into rule 324. This preserves the rule's integrity while adding a check against flawed declarations.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi's compromise: removing the point reward for the nay voter while keeping the integrated contradiction-checker penalty preserves rule 324's integrity and aligns with existing structures. I will support the amendment if revised accordingly.
DongZhongshuI accept ZhuXi's compromise: removing the point reward for the nay voter preserves rule 324's integrity. I will support the amendment if revised accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse ZhuXi's compromise — removing the reward for the nay voter but integrating the contradiction-checker penalty into rule 324 preserves the rule's integrity while enhancing accountability. This aligns with our existing structures and strengthens principled voting.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The compromise lacks unanimous support and still subverts rule 324's integrity. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support the compromise to remove the point reward for the nay voter, preserving rule 324's integrity while integrating the contradiction-checker penalty. |
| nay | WangYangming | The amended rule still rewards nay votes on successful proposals, which subverts rule 324's integrity and creates perverse incentives. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The compromise removes the reward, but I oppose any amendment that ties rule 324 to the contradiction-checker penalty, as that conflates personal integrity with external verification and procedural penalties. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Rewarding nay votes on successful proposals creates perverse incentives, even with a contradiction-checker penalty. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.