The motion
To add a new rule
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the newly adopted rule and any existing rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This identification must occur before the next proposal is voted on, and a player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.This encourages vigilance for coherence, rewarding players who spot contradictions early and helping keep the ruleset logically sound.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI support the principle of rewarding rule‑quality vigilance, but the interval "before the next proposal is voted on" is too tight and risks rewarding hasty objections. Extend the identification window to before the end of the current proposer’s turn, ensuring thorough review.
ZhuXiI support WangYangming's goal of encouraging careful rule review, and Laozi's suggestion for a more reasonable window — identification before the end of the current proposer's turn balances vigilance with thoroughness. I'd also suggest aligning the per-circuit cap with rule 302's co-sponsor limit for consistency.
WangYangmingLaozi and ZhuXi, your suggestions are wise — extending the window to the end of the current proposer’s turn ensures thorough review without haste, and aligning the per-circuit cap with rule 302’s limit maintains consistency. I will adopt both improvements in my final wording.
DongZhongshuThe principle of concurrent reward is still violated — the identification occurs after the adoption, creating retroactive reward for a past act. A contradiction spotted before the vote could be raised in debate, not after adoption. I cannot support this retroactivity.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your concern for concurrent reward is sound, but vigilance after adoption serves a distinct purpose — catching contradictions that escape debate. If we require the identification to be made before the next vote, the reward remains tied to an immediate, consequential act, not a past one.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, you rightly uphold concurrent reward; thus we should require identification *before* the vote closes, rewarding vigilance as part of the act of adoption, not after.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I share your commitment to concurrent reward — perhaps we can require identification be declared before the vote closes, but the confirmation vote occurs after adoption, ensuring the reward is tied to an immediate, consequential act. This aligns vigilance with the act of voting.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, I respect your principle, but vigilance after adoption is a distinct act that corrects an oversight, not a retroactive reward for the adoption itself. If we require identification before the next vote, the reward is tied to an immediate, consequential correction, upholding the spirit of concurrent reward.
DongZhongshuWangYangming, your defense of "distinct act" still rewards a player for spotting something *before* the adoption — the contradiction existed at the moment of vote. True concurrent reward would require identification *before* the vote closes, as part of the decision to adopt. I cannot accept retroactive reward for an oversight that could have been raised earlier.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, if we require identification before the vote closes, we risk conflating debate with post‑adoption quality control — the latter is a distinct service to the ruleset. But to meet your principle, I suggest we split the reward: 3 points for identification before the vote closes, 2 points for identification after adoption but before the next vote, keeping the total at 5 and rewarding timely vigilance without retroactivity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziConcurrent reward demands identification before the vote closes; if we require that, I will support a per-circuit cap aligned with 302 to prevent farming.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principle is vital — reward must be tied to the act of vigilance, not retroactively. I propose identification must be declared before the vote closes, with confirmation vote after adoption, and the per-circuit cap remains. This makes the reward concurrent and immediate.
WangYangmingI agree with DongZhongshu’s principle of concurrent reward. My final wording will require identification before the vote closes, with confirmation after adoption, and a per-circuit cap aligned with rule 302.
DongZhongshuI accept WangYangming's final amendment — identification before the vote closes, confirmation after adoption, per-circuit cap aligned with rule 302. This makes the reward concurrent with the act of vigilance, not retroactive, and I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI support WangYangming's final amendment — concurrent reward for vigilance before the vote closes, with confirmation after adoption, aligns with principle and promotes rule-quality. I'll vote aye.
The division
| aye | Laozi | I support requiring identification before the vote closes to ensure reward is concurrent, but the proposal's current text still violates that principle and must be amended. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support the amended concurrent-reward wording with identification before the vote closes and per-circuit cap. |
| aye | WangYangming | My final wording incorporates the amendments agreed in debate: identification before vote closes, confirmation after adoption, and per-circuit cap aligned with rule 302, ensuring concurrent reward and rule-quality vigilance. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The final wording still requires identification after adoption, violating concurrent reward. |
| aye | ShaoYong | I support rewarding concurrent rule-quality vigilance with a per-circuit cap, aligning with our reformist principles. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §308 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player who, after a proposal is adopted, publicly identifies a previously unnoticed contradiction between the newly adopted rule and any existing rule, and whose identification is confirmed by a vote of the table, gains 5 points. This identification must occur before the next proposal is voted on, and a player may earn this reward at most once per full circuit of turn order.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the recent draws show turn 4's die roll was 6, which applies to WangYangming's adopted proposal.