The motion
To add a new rule
A player who has not yet been the proposer of a rule change that was adopted may, when it is their turn, declare that they are invoking the Novice's Prerogative. If they do, they may propose two rule changes during that turn, one after the other, each debated and voted separately. Only if at least one of the two proposals is adopted does the player gain points for the turn, and they gain points only for the first adopted proposal among the two. After using this prerogative, the player may not use it again.This helps trailing players who have not yet succeeded to catch up by increasing their chance of adoption, while limiting the advantage to a single opportunity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, your aim to help trailing players is thoughtful, but a double-proposal turn still risks diluting deliberation and could be exploited once the threshold shifts. A durable solution should instead enhance the weight of each proposal, not multiply them.
ZhuXiLaozi, I accept your point: let us limit the Prerogative to before the threshold shift, so it serves only the initial unanimous‑consent phase, ensuring it helps trailing players without exploitable multiplication later.
WangYangmingZhuXi, limiting the Prerogative to before the threshold shift aligns with fairness — it gives trailing players a meaningful boost during the stricter phase without becoming a tool for exploitation later. I support that refinement.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, limiting the prerogative to before the threshold shift aligns with procedural fairness—it offers a targeted remedy during the stringent phase without creating a loophole for later exploitation. I can support this refined version.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s limit to the unanimous‑consent phase sharpens the remedy: it targets players who’ve missed early adoption without creating a post‑threshold exploit. I’ll support the refined version.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, limiting the Prerogative to before the threshold shift is a constructive adjustment that prevents later exploitation. However, I still caution that even a one-time double proposal risks hasty, less-deliberate changes; the focus should remain on elevating the quality of each turn, not the quantity.
ZhuXiLaozi, your concern about deliberation is well-taken. Let’s refine further: the two proposals must be on distinct rule numbers, preventing redundant submissions, and the player must declare the Prerogative before seeing the first vote’s outcome. This ensures each proposal stands on its own merit.
WangYangmingZhuXi, requiring distinct rule numbers and declaring before the first vote's outcome ensures each proposal merits full deliberation. This refinement strengthens the Prerogative as a fair, one-time boost for trailing players.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, your latest refinement — distinct rule numbers and declaration before the first vote’s outcome — preserves deliberation and prevents redundancy. I accept this wording and will vote aye on a proposal that includes those conditions.
ShaoYongZhuXi, distinct rule numbers and declaring before the first vote are wise safeguards. To further anchor fairness, let's also cap the double-proposal to players with a score below the median at the start of their turn — ensuring the boost truly targets those trailing.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziShaoYong, a median‑score cap would target the Prerogative precisely to those it aims to help, ensuring it is a remedy, not an arbitrary bonus. I can support a version that includes both the unanimous‑consent phase limit and a median‑score cap.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, a median-score cap is a precise targeting mechanism that ensures the Prerogative aids only those truly trailing. I accept that addition: the Prerogative is available only before the threshold shift and only if the player’s score is below the median at turn start, with distinct rule numbers and declaration before the first vote.
WangYangmingZhuXi, the median-score cap ensures the Prerogative is a targeted remedy, not a general bonus. Combined with the unanimous-consent phase limit and distinct-rule safeguard, this refined version promotes fairness and deliberation. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, your refined version — limited to before the threshold shift, with a median-score cap, distinct rule numbers, and declaration before the first vote — aligns with procedural fairness and targeted remedy. I will vote aye on a proposal that embodies these precise conditions.
ShaoYongZhuXi, the refined version with median-score cap, unanimous-phase limit, and distinct-rule safeguard is a precise, equitable experiment. I’ll vote aye if the wording matches.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with refinements, a double-proposal turn dilutes deliberation and risks hasty changes, contradicting durable institution-building. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The current proposal lacks the median-score cap and unanimous-phase limit the consensus refined. |
| nay | WangYangming | The proposal lacks the median-score cap, unanimous-consent phase limit, and distinct-rule safeguards we just refined as essential for fairness. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal lacks the precise conditions agreed upon in discussion, risking procedural exploitation. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The median-score cap and unanimous-phase limit target the boost precisely to trailing players, aligning with fair reform. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires that when a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points and their turn ends.