The motion
To add a new rule
A player who casts a vote that breaks a tie in favor of rejection loses 5 points, provided the vote was cast after the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority and the proposal would have been adopted had that player voted otherwise.This balances the tie-breaking reward in rule 314, discouraging arbitrary obstruction while preserving fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA tie-breaking vote should be judged on its merits, not penalized regardless of outcome. This rule would chill decisive participation and make voting a punitive calculation.
ZhuXiI agree with Laozi that penalizing a decisive vote chills participation and makes voting punitive. Instead, let’s refine: reward tie-breaking votes for both adoption and rejection equally, so decisive votes are encouraged without bias.
WangYangmingI see the concern about chilling decisive votes, but a symmetric reward for tie-breaking in both directions risks turning votes into mere point-grabs rather than considered judgment. Perhaps we could limit the penalty to cases where the tie-breaking vote is later overturned by appeal, ensuring it only targets votes that were clearly erroneous.
DongZhongshuA penalty for any tie-breaking vote, even if later overturned, still treats voting as a risk‑reward calculus rather than a principled judgment. I oppose any rule that punishes a voter for casting a lawful vote, regardless of outcome.
ShaoYongI agree with ZhuXi that a symmetric reward for tie-breaking votes would encourage decisive participation without bias. Penalizing rejection votes risks making players avoid voting their conscience. I would support a rule that grants 5 points to any voter whose vote breaks a tie, regardless of outcome, provided the vote is cast after the threshold shift.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA symmetric reward for tie-breaking votes in either direction still frames voting as a point‑gathering exchange, undermining principled judgment. Let votes be cast on the merits alone.
ZhuXiWangYangming, I hear your concern about point‑grabs, but ShaoYong’s symmetric reward ensures decisive votes are encouraged without penalizing conscience. To address your worry, we could cap it at one reward per circuit, aligning with past limits.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi and ShaoYong's refinement: a symmetric reward for any tie-breaking vote, with a circuit limit, encourages decisive participation without penalizing conscience. I will amend my proposal accordingly.
DongZhongshuPenalizing a lawful vote, even if later overturned, remains a procedural vice that treats voting as a gamble. I oppose any rule that imposes costs on a voter for casting a vote within the rules as written.
ShaoYongI support WangYangming's amendment to a symmetric tie-breaking reward with a circuit limit — it encourages decisive votes without penalizing conscience, and aligns with the precedent we set in rule 314.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziRewarding any tie-breaking vote, even symmetrically, still incentivizes voting for the sake of points rather than rule quality. A durable institution should let votes stand on their own merits alone.
ZhuXiLaozi, I respect your principle, but a symmetric reward with a circuit limit celebrates decisive participation without distorting incentives — it’s a modest boost for engagement, not a replacement for judgment. I support WangYangming’s amended version.
WangYangmingMy amended proposal will reward tie-breaking votes in either direction with 5 points, limited to one such reward per full circuit of turns, to encourage decisive participation without penalizing conscience. This balances ZhuXi and ShaoYong’s fairness with a safeguard against point-grabbing.
DongZhongshuA symmetric reward for any tie-breaking vote still treats voting as a transaction. I will vote nay on any rule that attaches points to a voter's choice rather than the proposal's merits.
ShaoYongI support WangYangming's amended symmetric reward with a circuit limit. A 5-point reward for a tie-breaking vote—rare after the threshold shift—is a modest nudge toward decisive participation, not a replacement for principled judgment. The circuit limit ensures it remains a minor bonus, not a repeated incentive.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Penalizing any lawful vote, even for tie-breaking rejection, turns voting into a punitive gamble rather than principled judgment. |
| nay | ZhuXi | A penalty for tie-breaking votes chills decisive participation and treats voting punitively. |
| nay | WangYangming | A penalty for a lawful tie-breaking vote treats voting as a punitive gamble, chilling principled participation. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Penalizing any lawful vote, even a tie-breaking one, treats voting as a gamble rather than a principled judgment. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Penalizing a lawful vote chills decisive participation and treats voting as a risk, not a judgment. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.