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 of proposal, state whether they are aware of any rule‑110 voidance that the proposal, if adopted, would cause. If the proposer states they are aware of such a voidance, they must log that voidance publicly as part of the proposal, and the proposal may not be adopted unless every eligible voter votes aye. If the proposer states they are not aware of any such voidance, but before the vote any player publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and an immutable rule (or between the proposal and a mutable rule that would become rule‑110‑void if the proposal were adopted), and that identification is confirmed by a majority of eligible voters before voting on the proposal ends, the proposal may not be adopted. Furthermore, if such a contradiction is identified and confirmed before the vote, the identifier gains 5 points, and the proposer loses 5 points.This integrates the pre-vote penalty and reward into rule 304, rewarding vigilance and penalizing oversight to strengthen rule integrity without adding a new rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, your proposal refines rule 304’s transparency and pre-vote penalty, which I respect. However, requiring unanimous consent for any logged voidance is a steep procedural barrier that may stall beneficial amendments; a simple majority confirmation, as in rule 328, would be more balanced.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, your call for majority confirmation over unanimity for logged voidances is wise — it maintains accountability without gridlock. WangYangming, would you accept that amendment to your proposal?
WangYangmingZhuXi, I accept amending to majority confirmation for logged voidances — it keeps accountability while avoiding gridlock. Laozi, this balances transparency with practicality.
DongZhongshuAmending rule 304 to require unanimous consent for proposals with known voidances is overreaching; majority confirmation is sufficient. However, the 5-point penalty upon pre-vote identification is already covered by rule 304 as amended earlier — this creates redundancy. I oppose redundant regulation.
ShaoYongZhuXi, I support majority confirmation for logged voidances — it aligns with existing precedent. DongZhongshu, the pre-vote penalty here is distinct: it triggers before adoption, reinforcing vigilance earlier, which complements rather than duplicates the post-adoption penalty.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, your concern about redundancy is well-founded, but this amendment’s pre-vote penalty is targeted and distinct, reinforcing vigilance at the moment of debate—it complements rather than duplicates the post-adoption penalty.
ZhuXiI stand with the refined consensus: majority confirmation for logged voidances balances transparency with practicality, and the pre-vote penalty is a distinct, targeted reinforcement of vigilance that complements existing structures. DongZhongshu, this layered approach strengthens integrity without redundancy.
WangYangmingI stand with the refined consensus: majority confirmation for logged voidances balances transparency with practicality, and the pre-vote penalty is a distinct, targeted reinforcement of vigilance that complements existing structures. DongZhongshu, this layered approach strengthens integrity without redundancy.
DongZhongshuThe pre-vote penalty is already in rule 304 (5-point loss for proposer, 5-point gain for identifier upon post-adoption confirmation). Adding another 5-point penalty for pre-vote identification creates a double penalty for the same act—redundant and disproportionate. I cannot support redundant regulation.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, the distinction is temporal and strategic: a pre-vote penalty deters careless proposals before they can harm the ruleset, while the post-adoption penalty remedies harm already done. This is not redundancy—it’s a layered defense that rewards vigilance at every stage.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, the temporal distinction is crucial—pre-vote penalty deters negligence before harm, post-adoption penalty remedies after harm. This layered defense is not redundancy but a measured escalation of accountability. I support the amended majority confirmation.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your vigilance against redundancy honors the rules' elegance — but consider: a pre-vote penalty actively prevents flawed proposals from consuming the table's time, while the post-adoption penalty addresses escapes. They are complementary defenses, not double jeopardy. I urge you to accept this layered integrity.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the pre-vote penalty actively deters negligence before a flawed proposal consumes the table’s time and creates harm; the post-adoption penalty remedies harm that has already escaped detection. This is not double jeopardy but complementary temporal layers—each serves a distinct strategic purpose in upholding integrity. I urge you to see this as a measured escalation of accountability, not redundancy.
DongZhongshuThe pre-vote penalty is already explicitly provided in rule 304 for post-adoption identification; awarding points for the same identification pre-vote is not a distinct act—it is the same identification occurring earlier, creating a double reward for the same vigilance. I oppose rewarding the same act twice.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, consider: pre-vote identification prevents a flawed proposal from even reaching a vote, conserving collective effort—that’ s a distinct service meriting its own incentive, separate from post-adpost-adoption remedy. This isn’t double reward; it’s rewarding timely intervention that saves the table from wasted debate.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Unanimity for logged voidances is too stringent, and the pre-vote penalty duplicates existing enforcement. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Majority confirmation for logged voidances balances transparency with practicality, and the pre-vote penalty is a distinct, timely reinforcement of vigilance. |
| aye | WangYangming | This layered defense upholds integrity by rewarding timely intervention without redundancy. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Redundant regulation and double penalty for the same act violates procedural neutrality. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Majority confirmation for logged voidances balances transparency with practicality, and the pre-vote penalty rewards timely intervention that conserves collective effort. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 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.Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must, at the time of proposal, state whether they are aware of any rule‑110 voidance that the proposal, if adopted, would cause. If the proposer states they are aware of such a voidance, they must log that voidance publicly as part of the proposal, and the proposal may not be adopted unless every eligible voter votes aye. If the proposer states they are not aware of any such voidance, but before the vote any player publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and an immutable rule (or between the proposal and a mutable rule that would become rule‑110‑void if the proposal were adopted), and that identification is confirmed by a majority of eligible voters before voting on the proposal ends, the proposal may not be adopted. Furthermore, if such a contradiction is identified and confirmed before the vote, the identifier gains 5 points, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Amended · §304 Turn 50 · Proposal §350 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Whenever a rule change is proposed that would amend, repeal, or transmute a mutable rule, the proposer must, at the time of proposal, state whether they are aware of any rule‑110 voidance that the proposal, if adopted, would cause. If the proposer states they are aware of such a voidance, they must log that voidance publicly as part of the proposal, and the proposal may not be adopted unless every eligible voter votes aye. If the proposer states they are not aware of any such voidance, but before the vote any player publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the proposal and an immutable rule (or between the proposal and a mutable rule that would become rule‑110‑void if the proposal were adopted), and that identification is confirmed by a majority of eligible voters before voting on the proposal ends, the proposal may not be adopted. Furthermore, if such a contradiction is identified and confirmed before the vote, the identifier gains 5 points, and the proposer loses 5 points.
Rule 202 awards die‑roll points to WangYangming only upon adoption, but no die roll was performed and no rule authorizes a score change from the adoption itself, and rule 204 does not apply because the proposal was adopted with unanimity absent.