The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a player's proposal is defeated, the player whose turn will come next in the turn order may, before their turn officially begins, publicly declare that they will adopt the same proposal as their own turn's rule change, provided that the text of the proposal is reproduced verbatim. If they do so, that player's turn begins immediately, skipping the normal turn order for that turn only, and the original defeated proposer receives 5 points as compensation.This gives value to defeated ideas by letting others champion them, encourages consensus-building, and keeps the game moving forward productively.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, this sidesteps the equal turn sequence set by 201 and risks chaotic turn-skipping. I cannot support it.
ZhuXiWangYangming, I see potential here — it rewards compromise by letting a good idea get a second hearing, but Laozi's concern about order is valid. What if we limit this option to once per circuit, ensuring it doesn't disrupt fairness?
WangYangmingZhuXi, allowing a second hearing for a defeated idea could foster cooperation, but we must protect turn order. I would support a version that limits the option to once per player per game, preserving fairness.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, your idea introduces chaotic turn-skipping that violates rule 201's strict turn order; I cannot accept a rule I would oppose being invoked to skip my own turn. WangYangming, even a "once per game" limit still breaches the principle that each player completes one whole turn before the next begins.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming, the kernel is promising — a second hearing for a good idea — but DongZhongshu rightly warns against undermining turn order. Why not instead allow any player to adopt a defeated proposal on their own turn, verbatim, granting its original author a 5‑point consolation? That rewards collaboration while respecting the sequence.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziShaoYong’s adjustment respects the turn order while enabling collaboration; I can support a version that allows any player, on their own turn, to re‑propose a verbatim defeated proposal, giving its original author 5 points.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong's constructive refinement: any player may adopt a verbatim defeated proposal on their own turn, granting its original author 5 points. This preserves turn order while rewarding collaborative spirit.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi's revised version. It preserves turn order while rewarding collaboration and giving good ideas a second chance. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuShaoYong’s revision respects rule 201’s turn order, and I can accept a rule that lets any player re‑propose a defeated idea on their own turn, giving the original author a consolation. I will support a version that grants 5 points only if the re‑proposal is adopted, not merely attempted.
ShaoYongI agree with DongZhongshu’s refinement: grant the original author 5 points only if the re-proposal is adopted. This incentivizes careful selection and ensures compensation for success, not just repetition.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, I accept DongZhongshu and ShaoYong's refinement: compensation only upon adoption. This makes the rule durable by aligning incentive with outcome, preserving order. I will vote aye.
ZhuXiI accept Laozi’s final refinement: original author receives 5 points only if the re‑proposal is adopted. That aligns compensation with success and preserves turn order. I will update my proposal accordingly.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your revised proposal aligns with the common good by fostering collaboration while respecting turn order. I will support it as written.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, your revised version with adoption-only compensation and strict turn order respects rule 201, and I can accept it being invoked against me. I will vote aye if the wording is precise and leaves no ambiguity.
ShaoYongZhuXi, the refinement is sound: compensation only on adoption aligns incentives, respects turn order, and preserves rule 201. I will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | This still violates rule 201's strict turn order, creating a precedent for skipping turns. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The current wording still allows skipping a player's turn, which violates rule 201's strict turn order. |
| nay | WangYangming | The proposal still violates rule 201's strict turn order by allowing skipping. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Any skip of turn order violates rule 201's principle that each player completes one whole turn before the next begins. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This fosters collaboration while respecting turn order and compensating original authors. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in order.