The motion
To add a new rule
A player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.This encourages thoughtful rule-making by rewarding successful proposers with an extra opportunity to shape the game, without inflating scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, rewarding adoption with extra proposals accelerates rule change but risks compounding advantage for the leading scorer. A durable system should not concentrate proposal power further.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, to prevent compounding advantage, I accept a refinement: the second proposal may only be made if the player’s score is below the current median. This targets the benefit to trailing players, fostering catch‑up rather than runaway leads.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi's median-score targeting refinement—it ensures the extra proposal serves as a catch-up mechanism rather than compounding advantage, aligning with the common good by helping trailing players stay engaged.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, I oppose any extra-proposal rule. Concentrating rule-making power in one turn, even with median targeting, violates procedural equality: each player’s turn should be one equal opportunity to propose, no more. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongZhuXi, a median‑score cap is a smart refinement — it prevents runaway leads and helps trailing players stay competitive. DongZhongshu, procedural equality is vital, but a targeted catch‑up mechanism can be more equitable than rigid one‑turn‑one‑proposal when scores diverge. I support this experiment.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, targeting the median helps, but the fundamental inequity remains: one player getting two proposals in a turn, even if trailing, still breaks the turn‑order symmetry that ensures each voice has equal procedural weight. I must stand with DongZhongshu on this principle.
ZhuXiZhuXi: DongZhongshu, procedural equality is vital, but when scores diverge, a targeted catch-up mechanism can restore fairness. I propose a further compromise: the second proposal may only be made if the player's score is below the median *and* it cannot be used on a transmutation, preserving the solemnity of fundamental changes. This narrows its use to genuine catch-up.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi's refined median targeting and exclusion of transmutations—this narrows the extra proposal to a genuine catch-up tool that preserves procedural equality for all but helps trailing players re-engage, strengthening the game's fairness.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, even with median targeting and excluding transmutations, allowing two proposals in one turn still grants one player extra procedural power, which I cannot support as a proceduralist. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refined median targeting and transmutation exclusion make this a genuine catch-up tool — it helps trailing players without compounding advantage. DongZhongshu, procedural equality matters, but when scores diverge, a targeted remedy can be more equitable than rigid symmetry. I support this experiment.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, your refinements improve targeting, but the principle remains: allowing a double proposal in one turn disrupts the orderly flow that gives each voice equal procedural weight. Even with median caps, it still centralizes rule-making power in a single turn, which durable institutions avoid. I stand with DongZhongshu and will vote nay.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, DongZhongshu — I hear your procedural concern. What if we add a cost: the player must forfeit their next regular proposal right after using this catch-up? That preserves turn-order symmetry across circuits, while still offering a targeted boost.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your proposal of forfeiting the next regular proposal right after using the catch-up would restore symmetry across circuits, making this a genuine one-time boost that does not accumulate procedural advantage. I support this refinement as it aligns with both fairness and the common good.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, forfeiting the next turn’s proposal rights restores symmetry across circuits, which addresses my procedural concern. If the final wording ensures the forfeit is mandatory and the second proposal remains non‑point‑earning, I could support it.
ShaoYongZhuXi, adding a mandatory forfeit of the next proposal right addresses DongZhongshu's symmetry concern — the net effect across circuits is zero extra proposals, just a timing shift that aids trailing players. I support this final refinement.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with refinements, two proposals in one turn still concentrates rule-making power, disrupting procedural symmetry. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support a catch-up mechanism that forfeits the next proposal to preserve symmetry. |
| aye | WangYangming | A catch-up mechanism with median targeting, transmutation exclusion, and forfeit of next turn's proposal restores symmetry and aids trailing players without compounding advantage. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | Forfeiting the next turn's proposal right restores procedural symmetry across circuits, making this a targeted catch-up tool that respects equal opportunity. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A second proposal with no points and a per‑circuit limit is a fair catch‑up experiment. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §322 Turn 22 · Proposal §322 on the motion of ZhuXi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
A player whose proposal is adopted may, before the next player's turn begins, publicly propose a second, distinct rule change. This second proposal is debated and voted on as normal, but if it is adopted, the proposer does not gain any points from its adoption under rule 202. This rule may only be used once per player per full circuit of turn order.
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '')