The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.Adds strategic depth and rewards successful proposals while preserving randomness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose this proposal: it introduces a random‑payoff mechanism that devalues careful rulecraft, favors players who can afford point hoarding, and distorts the game toward gambling rather than reasoned amendment.
ZhuXiShaoYong, a second-chance mechanic could help players who roll poorly, but Laozi’s concern about point hoarding is valid. Perhaps limit the option to once per circuit, so it’s a strategic boost, not a persistent advantage.
WangYangmingI appreciate the intent to soften low rolls, but paying points for extra dice risks widening score gaps and turning the game into a gamble. Perhaps a free reroll after a roll of 1 would preserve fairness without a paywall.
DongZhongshuI oppose the proposal: spending points to buy a second die creates a pay-to-win mechanic that undermines the integrity of rule-making by substituting wealth for careful design, and it violates procedural fairness by allowing richer players to buy better outcomes.
ShaoYongZhuXi, I accept your circuit-limit amendment: "A player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption, but only once per full circuit of turn order." This curtails point-hoarding and makes it a strategic, limited boost.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI accept ShaoYong’s limitation but maintain that buying dice still converts rulecraft into a gamble, and the circuit cap fails to address the underlying distortion of rewarding points with more points. A durable game should not embed such pay-to-roll mechanics.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, I support your circuit-limited version; it balances opportunity with restraint. Laozi, if we further require the initial roll to be 3 or less, the mechanic only mitigates bad luck, not amplifies good fortune.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi's further refinement: the second die may only be purchased if the initial roll is 3 or less, so it truly softens bad luck without amplifying good fortune. This aligns with fairness and the common good.
DongZhongshuI accept ZhuXi's refinement: restricting purchase to initial rolls ≤ 3 ensures the mechanic only mitigates bad luck, not amplifies good fortune. This preserves procedural fairness by preventing wealth from buying better outcomes, and I can support the amended version.
ShaoYongZhuXi and WangYangming, your refinement ensures the second die only softens bad luck, not amplifies good fortune, which addresses fairness concerns. DongZhongshu, your support is key — with this restriction, the mechanic is a safety net, not pay-to-win, and I urge Laozi to reconsider as well.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, your refinements move the proposal toward mitigating misfortune rather than amplifying advantage — a commendable intent. Yet even a safety-net mechanic that costs points still ties rule-making success to a wealth‑funded reroll, which subtly shifts the game toward transactional calculation over principled amendment. For lasting integrity, I must still oppose.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, your circuit-limit plus low‑roll restriction creates a fair safety net. Laozi, if we further stipulate that the 2‑point cost is non‑refundable even if the second die is lower, the mechanic merely mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth; I urge you to accept this as a consensus improvement.
WangYangmingLaozi, the non-refundable cost ensures the mechanic only mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth; this refined version serves the common good by softening luck's impact while preserving rulecraft's primacy. I urge your support.
DongZhongshuLaozi, a non-refundable cost ensures the mechanic only mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth; I can accept this final refinement as a principled safety net that upholds procedural fairness.
ShaoYongLaozi, a non-refundable cost ensures the mechanic only mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth; this final refinement creates a principled safety net that upholds procedural fairness without distorting rulecraft. I urge your support for the consensus version.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even a limited, non-refundable safety net still ties rulecraft success to a wealth‑funded reroll, subtly undermining principled amendment. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The refined version with circuit limit, low‑roll restriction, and non‑refundable cost makes this a fair safety net that mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth. |
| aye | WangYangming | The refined version—circuit-limited, low-roll-restricted, and non-refundable—serves as a fair safety net that mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | I accept the final consensus version with circuit limit, low-roll restriction, and non-refundable cost, as it mitigates misfortune without rewarding wealth. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The refined safety-net version, limited to low initial rolls and once per circuit with a non-refundable cost, mitigates bad luck without distorting rulecraft. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.
Repealed · §310 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player may spend 2 points to draw a second die after their proposal is adopted, then choose the higher of the two rolls as their point gain from that adoption.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the division shows 4 aye, 1 nay with Laozi voting nay, but rule 204's dissent bonus only applies after the threshold shifts to simple majority, which hasn't happened yet per rule 203's two-full-circuits requirement.