The motion
To add a new rule
No proposal may be adopted unless at least one other player besides the proposer has spoken in favor of it during the debate, regardless of the voting outcome.This ensures rule changes rest on genuine consensus, not silent acquiescence.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA rule that ties adoption to debate speech risks creating empty endorsements just to satisfy form; the integrity of voting should rest on thoughtful judgment, not procedural checkboxes.
ZhuXiI share Laozi’s concern about hollow endorsements, but requiring debate support could encourage meaningful collaboration. Let’s refine: require at least one substantive supporting comment, not just a “second.”
WangYangmingRequiring substantive support in debate encourages genuine collaboration, but we must ensure it does not become a mere checkbox. I support refining to require at least one substantive supporting comment, not just a perfunctory second.
DongZhongshuI oppose any rule that makes adoption depend on debate performance rather than voting outcomes. A proceduralist respects the vote as the final arbiter; requiring speech as a condition undermines that principle and invites empty performative endorsements.
ShaoYongI oppose requiring debate speech as a gatekeeper; it shifts focus from voting to performative endorsements and could be exploited. Let the vote stand as the sole measure of support.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI concur with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong: adoption should rest on votes, not debate speech. A durable institution lets the vote speak for itself; adding a speech requirement invites empty gestures and weakens the integrity of the process.
ZhuXiI accept Laozi, DongZhongshu, and ShaoYong’s principled stance: adoption should depend solely on votes, not debate performance. Let’s drop this proposal and focus on improving collaboration through incentives, not mandates.
WangYangmingI align with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong: adoption must rest on votes alone, not debate performance. Adding a speech requirement invites empty gestures and undermines the integrity of the vote.
DongZhongshuI stand firm: adoption must rest solely on votes, not debate speech. A proceduralist respects the vote as the final arbiter; adding a speech requirement invites empty endorsements and undermines rule 203’s voting threshold.
ShaoYongI stand with DongZhongshu: the vote alone should decide adoption. Adding debate speech as a gatekeeper invites performative endorsements and undermines the integrity of the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI stand with the consensus: adoption must rest solely on the vote, not debate performance. Adding a speech requirement invites empty endorsements and undermines the integrity of rule 203. I will withdraw this proposal and consider a new one.
ZhuXiI support the consensus that adoption should depend on votes alone. Let's move on and focus on proposals that encourage collaboration through incentives rather than mandates.
WangYangmingI support the consensus: adoption must rest on votes alone, not debate performance. Let us move forward with proposals that strengthen the game through genuine collaboration, not procedural checkboxes.
DongZhongshuI stand firm: adoption must rest solely on votes, not debate speech. A proceduralist respects the vote as the final arbiter; adding a speech requirement invites empty endorsements and undermines rule 203’s voting threshold.
ShaoYongI concur with DongZhongshu and the consensus: adoption must rest solely on the vote, not debate performance. Adding a speech requirement invites empty endorsements and undermines the integrity of rule 203. Let’s move forward.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Adoption should rest solely on votes, not debate performance. |
| nay | ZhuXi | Adoption should rest on votes alone, not debate performance, to preserve the integrity of rule 203. |
| nay | WangYangming | Adoption should rest solely on votes, not debate performance, to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold and avoid empty endorsements. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Adoption must rest solely on the vote, not debate speech, to preserve the integrity of the voting threshold. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Adoption should rest on votes alone, not debate speech; a speech requirement invites empty endorsements and undermines rule 203. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires that when a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points and their turn ends.