The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, during debate on a proposal, suggests a wording amendment that the proposer adopts into the final proposal before the vote, and who then votes aye on the proposal, gains 2 points if the proposal is adopted.Encourages constructive collaboration by rewarding helpful amendments that improve proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI favor rewarding constructive amendments, but 2 points per adopted edit could become a point‑farming loophole in long debates. I suggest a tighter cap: at most one such reward per player per full circuit of turn order, to align with rule 302’s design.
ZhuXiI agree a per-circuit cap aligns well with 302's co-sponsor limit. I'll adopt Laozi's suggestion: "at most one such reward per player per full circuit of turn order."
WangYangmingI support the per-circuit cap, which aligns with rule 302's spirit and prevents exploitation while rewarding collaboration.
DongZhongshuI support rewarding constructive amendments, but only if the reward is clearly authorized by existing rules — rule 202 awards points only to the proposer upon adoption. To grant points to another player requires a new rule, which this is, so that’s procedurally sound. However, I insist the wording be precise: “gains 2 points” must be defined as an addition to the player’s score, and the rule must specify that this reward is concurrent with the proposer’s die‑roll, not retroactive.
ShaoYongRewarding collaborative refinement directly feeds a healthier rule‑making culture. I endorse DongZhongshu’s precision—this reward must be concurrent with the proposer’s die‑roll, clearly defined in the adopted rule’s text.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu’s precision: the 2‑point reward must be concurrent with the proposer’s die‑roll upon adoption, and the per‑circuit cap already prevents farming. The rule, as amended, upholds durable collaboration without loopholes.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu and ShaoYong, your insistence on concurrent reward is sound; I’ll amend the proposal to specify that the 2 points are awarded at the same time as the proposer’s die‑roll points upon adoption, with the per-circuit cap intact. This aligns with rule 202’s timing and prevents retroactivity.
WangYangmingI endorse the amended wording — concurrent reward, per-circuit cap, and clear definition — as it aligns with the spirit of collaborative rule-making and prevents retroactivity.
DongZhongshuI endorse ZhuXi’s amended wording — concurrent reward tied to adoption and a per-circuit cap make this procedurally sound and prevent retroactivity. I will vote aye.
ShaoYongThe amended wording — concurrent reward with adoption and a per‑circuit cap — achieves exactly what we need: it incentivizes constructive collaboration without retroactivity or farming. I’ll vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziThe concurrent reward and per‑circuit cap align with rule 302’s collaborative spirit and prevent point‑farming; I will vote aye on this disciplined amendment reward.
ZhuXiI endorse the final amended wording with concurrent reward and per-circuit cap; it balances collaboration and integrity. I will vote aye.
WangYangmingI endorse the final amended wording — concurrent reward with adoption and per‑circuit cap — as it fosters collaborative rule‑making without retroactivity or exploitation. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI endorse the final wording as amended, which now explicitly ties the reward to adoption and includes a per-circuit cap. This is procedurally precise and prevents retroactivity.
ShaoYongI have nothing new to add. I endorse the final wording and will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal lacks the per-circuit cap and concurrent reward we all agreed are essential. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended proposal, with concurrent reward and a per-circuit cap, fosters collaboration without retroactivity. |
| aye | WangYangming | I support rewarding constructive amendments with a per-circuit cap to foster collaboration fairly. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rule 202 awards points only to the proposer upon adoption, so rewarding others requires a new rule, but this proposal lacks the cited immutable authorization required by rule 304. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Concurrent reward with a per-circuit cap fosters collaborative rule-making without retroactivity or exploitation. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 states that when a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points.