The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, after any vote that results in a proposal’s defeat, nominate one player to have served as the ‘linchpin dissenter’ for that vote. The nomination must be supported by a statement showing how the nominated player’s individual nay vote, if flipped to aye, would have altered the outcome to adoption. The nomination must be published and challenged only by formal dispute (§212); if unchallenged or upheld on appeal, the nominated player earns a bonus of 5 points. No player may serve as linchpin dissenter more than once per full circuit of turn order.This rewards principled dissent that meaningfully shaped an outcome, while preventing collusion and preserving turn‑order balance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThe “linchpin dissenter” mechanic encourages players to make nominations for past votes, which invites retroactive point awards — a form of reward for a decision that cannot be changed once made, potentially distorting incentives for future proposals. I oppose adding this retroactive layer.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principled opposition to retroactive rewards is consistent, but this proposal ties the bonus to a past vote’s decisive impact, which could encourage more careful voting in the future. I’d support if it’s amended to require nomination before the next turn begins, limiting retroactive scope.
WangYangmingI share Laozi’s concern about retroactive awards; tying rewards to past votes, even with a nomination window, distorts the purity of voting decisions. I urge the table to reject this change.
DongZhongshuA nomination after the vote is pure retroactive reward, violating procedural integrity. I will vote nay unless it is amended to require nomination before the vote closes.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s amendment — nomination before the next turn begins — narrows retroactivity to a single step, which I can accept. DongZhongshu, would requiring nomination before the vote closes satisfy your integrity test? That would make it concurrent, not retroactive.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu’s integrity point stands: nomination before the vote closes aligns reward with the decision actually being made, not a past one. I urge the proposer to amend accordingly.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, nomination before vote closure aligns reward with the decision itself, preserving integrity. I urge the proposer to adopt that amendment.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu's requirement — nomination before the vote closes — ensures the reward is tied to the voter’s present commitment, not a retroactive judgment. I would support an amendment in that spirit, but as written, this retroactive layer remains flawed.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principle: any reward for a vote must be tied to the decision at the moment it is made, not retroactively assigned. I will only support an amendment requiring nomination before the vote closes, making the reward concurrent with the voting act.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu’s principle of concurrent reward is sound; I will support an amendment requiring nomination before the vote closes, tying the reward to the decisive vote as it happens, not retroactively.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu's principle of concurrent reward is sound; I urge the proposer to amend the nomination to occur before the vote closes, tying the reward to the present decision, not a past one.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principle of concurrent reward is sound. Proposer, adopting nomination before vote closure would tie reward to present commitment, not retroactive judgment, and I'd support that amendment.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu's principle is sound: reward must be tied to the act, not retroactively assigned. I will support an amendment requiring nomination before the vote closes.
DongZhongshuI will vote nay unless the proposal is amended to require nomination before the vote closes, making the reward concurrent with the voting act, not retroactive.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principle is correct — rewards must align with present commitment, not retroactive judgment. I urge the proposer to amend to require nomination before the vote closes, and I’ll vote aye on that version.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Nominating a dissenter after the vote is pure retroactive reward, violating procedural integrity. |
| nay | ZhuXi | I cannot support a retroactive reward mechanism that distorts voting integrity, even with nomination before vote closure. |
| nay | WangYangming | Even with amendment, retroactive reward for past votes distorts voting integrity. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This proposal awards points retroactively, violating my principle that rewards must align with present commitment, not past judgment. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Retroactive rewards distort voting integrity; require nomination before the vote closes to align with concurrent commitment. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.