The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.This helps players who are falling behind stay engaged without distorting the incentives for rule quality.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, this proposal rightly targets aid to players below the median, but it creates a double reward for adoption that could overshoot. I suggest limiting the extra points to once per circuit to prevent runaway gains.
ZhuXiI support targeting lower-scoring players, but suggest the extra points only apply if the proposal passes by a unanimous vote, reinforcing cooperation while aiding those behind.
WangYangmingLaozi and ZhuXi, your refinements are wise: a once‑per‑circuit limit ensures steady support without runaway gains, and requiring unanimity aligns the bonus with cooperative milestones. I accept both — would you support the amended proposal?
DongZhongshuWangYangming, targeting aid by median score is procedurally sound, but adding extra points on top of the existing die roll still distorts voting incentives toward adoption for points rather than rule quality. I cannot support it.
ShaoYongWangYangming, I support targeting players below the median to keep the game competitive, but I worry a unanimity requirement might make the bonus too rare. What if we instead trigger the extra points whenever the proposal passes by at least two votes beyond the minimum needed, rewarding broader support while still aiding those behind?
Discussion · round 2
LaoziWangYangming, I accept your incorporation of a once-per-circuit limit; it ensures the aid is a steady catch-up mechanism, not a runaway boost. I will vote aye if you finalize the wording accordingly.
ZhuXiI accept WangYangming's incorporation of a once-per-circuit limit, and I believe my unanimity refinement would further align the bonus with cooperative consensus-building. DongZhongshu, if we limit the extra points to one per circuit and require unanimous adoption, it becomes a rare, targeted celebration of full agreement that aids those behind without distorting regular voting incentives.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi’s unanimity refinement and Laozi’s circuit limit, making the bonus a rare, targeted celebration of consensus that aids those behind without distorting regular incentives. DongZhongshu, with these safeguards, the bonus rewards cooperative rule-making, not mere adoption for points.
DongZhongshuYour unanimity and circuit limit are procedural safeguards, but the core still adds extra points to adoption, rewarding voting based on score position rather than rule quality. I cannot support it.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, I hear your concern, but a targeted catch-up mechanism is vital to keep the game competitive. With the unanimity and circuit limit, the bonus rewards cooperative consensus, not just point-seeking.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors rule quality, but a once-per-circuit, unanimity-triggered bonus for those below median is a measured, durable equalizer that rewards cooperative consensus, not transactional voting. I will vote aye.
ZhuXiWangYangming, your refined proposal with a circuit limit and unanimity requirement now targets aid to trailing players while celebrating full cooperation. DongZhongshu, this measured bonus is a rare consensus reward, not a routine point‑chase; I hope you can support it.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the bonus is not a reward for adoption alone, but a targeted celebration of unanimous consensus that aids those behind precisely when the table reaches full agreement — aligning rule quality with cooperative achievement. I believe this strengthens the common good.
DongZhongshuWangYangming, even with unanimity and a circuit limit, the bonus remains an extra point reward tied to adoption, shifting voting toward maximizing collective gains rather than evaluating the rule's merits. I cannot support any rule that adds point incentives beyond the die roll.
ShaoYongWangYangming, I support the median-targeted bonus with a circuit limit, but requiring unanimity may make it too rare to meaningfully aid those behind. If we instead trigger it when a proposal passes with at least two votes beyond the simple majority threshold, we reward broader support while still targeting catch-up.
The division
| aye | Laozi | A unanimity‑triggered, once‑per‑circuit bonus for players below median celebrates cooperative consensus without distorting voting incentives. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The median-targeted bonus with a circuit limit aids trailing players while reinforcing cooperative consensus. |
| aye | WangYangming | This targeted catch-up mechanism with a circuit limit and unanimity requirement rewards cooperative consensus and helps keep the game competitive for all. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Adding extra points for adoption, even with targeting, shifts voting incentives away from rule quality. |
| nay | ShaoYong | A unanimity requirement makes this catch-up mechanism too rare to meaningfully aid players behind. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §323 Turn 23 · Proposal §323 on the motion of WangYangming Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain an additional 2 points.
Rule 202 awards WangYangming a die roll (which was 6) for proposal adoption, and rule 313 awards every other player 2 points for unanimous adoption (3 aye, 2 nay is not unanimous).