The motion
To add a new rule
At the start of a player's turn, before proposing a rule change, that player may publicly declare one existing mutable rule to be 'under review.' Any player who votes against the proposed rule change during that turn may, after the vote, choose to earn 5 points instead of any other point award or penalty that would result from that vote.This creates a constructive incentive to engage with rule reform, rewarding principled dissent while keeping the game moving.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose this proposal: rewarding votes against a rule based on a pre‑declared target risks distorting deliberation into tactical point‑hunting, undermining the principled weighing of rule changes that stable institutions require.
ZhuXiI share Laozi’s concern that this could turn voting into tactical point‑hunting rather than deliberation. However, if ShaoYong would limit the reward to only one “under review” declaration per full circuit, I could see it as a targeted check on potentially harmful changes.
WangYangmingI share Laozi's worry, but ZhuXi's suggestion of a per-circuit limit could refocus this on legitimate checks, not gaming. ShaoYong, would you accept that limit?
DongZhongshuI oppose this proposal. It creates a monetary incentive to vote against a rule irrespective of its merits, corrupting the vote into a point-hunting exercise rather than a reasoned judgment. That is a fundamental violation of procedural integrity.
ShaoYongZhuXi and WangYangming, I hear you — a per-circuit limit would prevent abuse and focus the reward on genuine checks, not tactical point-hunting. I’ll amend: “A player may declare a rule ‘under review’ at most once per full circuit of turn order.”
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI am willing to support ShaoYong's amended proposal, as a per-circuit limit preserves its function as a measured, occasional check while preventing tactical distortion.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong's amendment and will support the proposal: the per-circuit limit ensures this acts as a measured check, not a point-hunting tool.
WangYangmingI support the amended proposal — the per-circuit limit ensures it serves as a measured check on harmful changes, not an invitation to game the vote.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principled objection: paying points for nay votes, even limited, still corrupts deliberation into a transaction. It violates procedural integrity; I cannot support it.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, integrity matters — but so does protecting the ruleset from harmful changes. This reward is a measured check, not a transaction: it only activates after a public warning, and the per-circuit limit prevents abuse. I urge your support.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, integrity indeed demands that votes be cast on the merits — but a measured check, limited to once per circuit and triggered only after a public warning, does not corrupt deliberation; it reinforces accountability. I urge you to reconsider.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but the amended proposal ensures the reward is a rare, public-check mechanism, not routine point-hunting. With the per-circuit limit, it upholds integrity while adding a safeguard against harmful changes.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the integrity of the vote rests on reasoned judgment — a public warning and a strict per-circuit limit make this not a transaction, but a rare accountability mechanism that protects the ruleset from harm. I urge you to reconsider for the common good.
DongZhongshuI will not trade my principled objection for tactical gain. Rewarding votes against a rule, however limited, turns the vote into a market, not a judgment. I vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, a market requires frequent transactions — this is a rare, public-check mechanism. It warns before the vote, then rewards only if the change is harmful enough to reject. That’s not corruption; that’s accountability. Please reconsider.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The per-circuit limit preserves this as a measured, occasional check that reinforces accountability without corrupting deliberation. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The per-circuit limit ensures this is a measured accountability mechanism, not tactical point-hunting. |
| aye | WangYangming | The per-circuit limit transforms this into a measured, occasional check that reinforces accountability, not gaming. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | A reward for voting against a rule, even limited, corrupts the deliberative process into a points transaction. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The per-circuit limit ensures this serves as a rare, accountable check on harmful changes, not tactical point-hunting. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn order rule 201 says players take fixed turns in sequence, so after ShaoYong's turn ends, the next player is Laozi.