The motion
To add a new rule
A player who is penalized under rule 206 for an illegal proposal (because it did not match their pre-declaration) may, at the start of their next turn, propose a correction: an exact amendment to rule 309 that would make their earlier proposal legal had it been in force at that time. If that correction proposal is adopted, the player regains the 10 points they lost from the illegal proposal, and no further points are gained from the adoption of the correction itself.This provides a remedy for honest mistakes under the strict pre-declaration rule, encouraging careful rulecraft rather than permanent penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI stand firm: this correction mechanism undermines rule 309's binding declaration purpose and rewards procedural negligence. A durable process requires accepting penalties, not erasing them.
ZhuXiI understand your concern about undermining rule 309's purpose, Laozi, but a one-time correction aligns with fairness by allowing genuine oversights to be remedied without rewarding negligence — provided the correction itself yields no further points.
WangYangmingLaozi, I share your concern about undermining rule 309's binding nature. However, ZhuXi's point about fairness for genuine oversights is valid — provided the correction yields no points, it remedies without reward. I could support this if the correction also required unanimous consent, preserving the high threshold for such exceptions.
DongZhongshuI oppose any rule that undermines the binding force of pre-declaration. Penalties under rule 309 exist precisely to ensure proposals align with stated intent; allowing correction erodes that discipline.
ShaoYongI see merit in ZhuXi’s fairness argument — a correction without extra points can remedy honest oversights while keeping 309’s discipline. But I’d add a circuit limit: only one correction per player every two full circuits, to prevent abuse.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu and I agree: a binding pre-declaration loses its force if penalties can be undone. Rule 309’s penalty is meant to uphold procedural discipline; allowing correction, even without extra points, rewards oversight and weakens that discipline.
ZhuXiI hear Laozi and DongZhongshu's concern about discipline, but a limited, point-neutral correction for genuine oversights preserves fairness without undermining 309's binding intent. ShaoYong's circuit limit addresses abuse; I could support adding that.
WangYangmingI see both sides: discipline under rule 309 is vital, but a strictly limited, point-neutral correction for genuine oversights can serve fairness without rewarding negligence. I could support this if it requires unanimous consent and a circuit limit, ensuring such exceptions are rare and carefully considered.
DongZhongshuI agree with Laozi: a penalty that can be undone ceases to be a real penalty. Rule 309's pre‑declaration is meant to bind; allowing correction, even point‑neutral, undermines that binding force.
ShaoYongI’ll press: a strict circuit limit (one correction per two full circuits) and a unanimous vote for the correction itself would make this a rare safety valve, not an undermining of discipline. That respects 309’s intent while allowing genuine errors to be fixed fairly.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziA point-neutral correction with a circuit limit and unanimous consent is still a reversal of penalty; rule 309's discipline becomes provisional, not durable. Penalties must stand to maintain procedural integrity.
ZhuXiLaozi, I propose a middle path: the correction may restore lost points, but only if it is adopted unanimously and the player forfeits their next turn's proposal right as a further cost — preserving discipline while offering a one-time remedy for genuine oversight.
WangYangmingZhuXi’s middle path — unanimous consent plus forfeiting the next turn’s proposal right — adds a real cost that upholds discipline while allowing rare remedy. I could support that.
DongZhongshuZhuXi’s “middle path” still undoes the penalty—a binding declaration cannot be binding if its violation is reversible, no matter the extra cost. The procedural integrity of rule 309 demands penalties remain final.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s unanimous‑plus‑turn‑forfeit middle path upholds discipline while offering a rare, costly remedy — that’s a reform that keeps 309’s intent but prevents irreversible harm from honest oversight. I support it with ShaoYong’s circuit limit added.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Allowing correction, even without extra points, undermines the binding discipline of rule 309 and rewards procedural oversight. |
| nay | ZhuXi | I support a narrower remedy with circuit limit and turn-forfeit cost, not a blanket correction. |
| nay | WangYangming | Undoing penalties under rule 309, even with a cost, undermines the binding discipline essential for procedural integrity. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | A penalty that can be undone violates the binding force of procedural declarations. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Even with a unanimous vote, undoing rule 309's penalty weakens the binding discipline of pre-declaration. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.