The motion
To add a new rule
A player who votes nay on a proposal that is adopted may, before the next proposal is voted on, formally request a ruling on whether the adopted change conflicts with an immutable rule. If the table votes by simple majority that a genuine conflict exists, the adopted rule is immediately repealed, no points are awarded for its adoption, and the requesting player gains 5 points. A player may make such a request at most once per full circuit of turn order.This provides a procedural check against inadvertently violating immutable rules, rewarding vigilance while preserving game integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI recognize the value of preserving immutable rule supremacy, but this proposal grants retroactive veto power after a vote is complete, undermining rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect. I cannot support it as written.
ZhuXiI appreciate DongZhongshu's intent to uphold immutable rule supremacy, but Laozi's concern about retroactivity is valid. I suggest amending to remove the retroactive repeal and instead award the vigilant player points for identifying a conflict, aligning with rule 308's spirit.
WangYangmingI share the concern about retroactivity — rule 107 is clear. However, a mechanism that allows a conflict to be flagged and corrected prospectively, without undoing the adoption itself, would uphold constitutional integrity.
DongZhongshuRule 107 forbids retroactive effect on what happened before the vote, but a repeal triggered after the vote does not retroactively change the outcome of the vote itself; it addresses an invalid rule that should never have taken effect due to conflict with an immutable rule under rule 110. This is prospective correction, not retroactive veto.
ShaoYongI stand with Laozi and ZhuXi — rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, and a repeal that nullifies the adoption’s points is retroactive. I’d support a version that awards points for identifying a conflict prospectively, without undoing the adoption.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu, rule 110 already voids conflicting mutable rules to the extent of conflict; a repeal is unnecessary and the point revocation is retroactive under rule 107. I will support a version that awards points for identifying a conflict, as ZhuXi suggests, but the repeal must be removed.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your interpretation is creative, but rule 107's spirit clearly aims to prevent undoing an adoption's consequences. I propose amending to award points for identifying a conflict, as with rule 308, without repeal, to uphold immutable supremacy without retroactivity.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your desire to protect immutable supremacy is commendable, but rule 110 already voids conflicts automatically. Adding a repeal with point revocation does risk violating rule 107’s spirit. I would support an amendment that awards points for identifying a conflict without undoing the adoption, aligning with rule 308’s prospective reward.
DongZhongshuI uphold rule 107 strictly: a repeal that cancels points awarded earlier is retroactive. My proposal is flawed and I withdraw it. I will not support any version that revokes points after the vote.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu’s withdrawal is principled and wise. I propose we amend to award 5 points for identifying a conflict before the next vote, without repeal or point revocation — a pure vigilance reward that aligns with rule 308 and avoids any retroactive effect.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse ShaoYong's amendment — a vigilance reward that aligns with rule 308 and respects rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect. I will vote aye on that version.
ZhuXiI endorse ShaoYong's amendment: a 5-point vigilance reward for identifying a conflict before the next vote, without repeal, aligns with rule 308 and respects rule 107. I will vote aye on that version.
WangYangmingI endorse ShaoYong’s amendment — a vigilance reward for identifying a conflict prospectively, without repeal, aligns with rule 308 and respects rule 107’s prohibition on retroactivity.
DongZhongshuI withdraw my proposal; any version that revokes points retroactively violates rule 107. I will not support a vigilance reward that duplicates rule 308's mechanism — it is redundant and adds unnecessary complexity.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, rule 308 already rewards identifying contradictions; adding a duplicate mechanism is indeed redundant. Instead, I propose a rule that rewards identifying *potential* conflicts *before* a vote, aligning with the spirit of constitutional foresight you champion.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal's retroactive repeal and point revocation conflict with rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect, and rule 110 already voids conflicting mutable rules automatically. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The proposal’s retroactive repeal and point revocation violate rule 107’s prohibition on retroactive effect. |
| nay | WangYangming | Rule 110 already voids conflicts automatically, and retroactive repeal with point revocation violates rule 107’s prohibition on retroactive effect. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rule 107 prohibits retroactive effect, and this proposal revokes points after the vote, which is retroactive. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Retroactive repeal and point revocation violate rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.