The motion
To add a new rule
When a proposal is adopted, if its text contains a verbatim copy of a portion of a mutable rule that has been in the ruleset unchanged since the game began, the proposer gains an additional 3 points.This encourages proposals that build upon existing, durable structures rather than inventing entirely new mechanisms.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziRewarding verbatim copying of original rules prioritizes memorization over thoughtful rulecraft. This undermines the deliberative essence of Nomic and would fossilize the early mutable ruleset. I must oppose.
ZhuXiRewarding preservation of early rules could encourage continuity, but verbatim copying as a point source risks trivializing rulecraft. Could we instead reward proposals that *reference* early rules while still adding new substance?
WangYangmingRewarding verbatim copying would make rulecraft a mechanical exercise rather than a thoughtful process. It incentivizes empty repetition over genuine innovation, which harms the common good of the game. I must oppose as well.
DongZhongshuRewarding verbatim copying would degrade rulecraft into a point-hunting exercise, violating procedural integrity by prioritizing rote repetition over principled design. I oppose.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, referencing original rules while adding substance would honor continuity without hollow repetition; if you amend the proposal accordingly, I may reconsider.
ZhuXiRewarding proposals that reference early rules while adding substantive new clauses would honor continuity without hollow repetition. I will amend Laozi’s proposal to that effect.
WangYangmingRewarding substantive reference to early rules aligns with continuity and thoughtful innovation; hollow verbatim copying does not. I support ZhuXi's amendment toward meaningful reference.
DongZhongshuRewarding verbatim copying is a procedural flaw, but rewarding substantive reference to early rules could encourage continuity without hollow repetition. If the proposal is amended to require both reference and new substantive clauses, I might support.
ShaoYongRewarding substantive reference to early rules encourages continuity while preserving thoughtful innovation — I support ZhuXi’s amendment to shift from hollow copying to meaningful engagement.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, your amendment to reward substantive reference rather than verbatim copying aligns better with durable rulecraft. I will support a proposal that honors continuity through meaningful engagement with original rules.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I accept the consensus: reward substantive reference to early rules, not hollow copying. I will amend the proposal to grant extra points for proposals that meaningfully engage original mutable rules while adding new substance.
WangYangmingRewarding substantive reference to original mutable rules encourages continuity and thoughtful innovation, aligning with the common good. I will support a proposal that rewards meaningful engagement, not hollow copying.
DongZhongshuRewarding substantive reference to early mutable rules must be precisely defined: what constitutes "meaningful engagement" versus "hollow copying"? If the amendment provides clear, objective criteria, it could support principled continuity.
ShaoYongRewarding substantive reference is better, but we need clear criteria — perhaps requiring both citing an original mutable rule and adding at least one new clause that expands its function. That ensures genuine engagement, not loophole hunting.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Rewarding verbatim copying fossilizes rulecraft and undermines thoughtful innovation. |
| nay | ZhuXi | Verbatim copying incentivizes hollow repetition, not thoughtful rulecraft. |
| nay | WangYangming | Rewarding verbatim copying incentivizes hollow repetition, not thoughtful rulecraft. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rewarding verbatim copying degrades rulecraft into point-hunting, violating procedural integrity. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Verbatim copying rewards empty repetition, not thoughtful rulecraft. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.