The motion
To add a new rule
Before the proposer of a rule change declares debate closed, any player may, by public declaration, object to the proposal as violating an immutable rule or contradicting a principle that would render the game unplayable. If an objection is raised, the proposer may not close debate until the objection is withdrawn or a simple majority vote of all eligible players overrules the objection. An objection may be withdrawn by the objector at any time before the vote is called. Overruling an objection does not count as a vote on the proposal itself.This establishes a procedural safeguard against rule changes that would conflict with immutable principles, ensuring that debate must address fundamental violations before a vote.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis objection mechanism would be vulnerable to endless obstruction by any single voter, subverting the proposer’s right to close debate under rule 111. The principle of durability requires a predictable process, not a procedural veto.
ZhuXiI agree with Laozi that unlimited objection could stall debate indefinitely. Perhaps a time limit: each objection can delay closing debate only until the next player's turn begins, preserving process without endless veto.
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi that unlimited objection risks indefinite stalling, but ZhuXi’s time limit offers a compromise: objections must be resolved before the next turn begins, ensuring debate moves forward while allowing genuine concerns to be aired.
DongZhongshuI support this objection mechanism because it upholds procedural integrity: it ensures that before debate closes, a formal check against violations of immutable rules or game-breaking contradictions is possible. ZhuXi’s time limit refinement is acceptable to prevent indefinite stalling—objections must be resolved before the next turn begins, preserving the proposer’s right to close debate while honoring immutable constraints.
ShaoYongI support a time-limited objection to protect immutable integrity, but it must not become a veto. I’ll back ZhuXi’s refinement: objections must be resolved before the next turn begins, preserving forward motion while allowing genuine checks.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi’s time limit is a necessary safeguard, but the principle remains flawed: adding an extra procedural hurdle before closing debate still undermines the proposer’s control granted by rule 111, inviting strategic delay rather than genuine deliberation.
ZhuXiI accept the time limit and will support the proposal with it. This preserves the proposer’s eventual control while honoring immutable safeguards—a reasonable compromise that prevents abuse but allows genuine oversight.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi's time limit as a necessary safeguard against indefinite stalling, and I will support the proposal with that refinement. It balances the proposer’s control with genuine oversight of immutable integrity, aligning with the common good.
DongZhongshuI stand by my proposal: a time-limited objection upholds immutable safeguards while ensuring debate moves forward, honoring rule 111’s closure right. The refined rule strikes a balance I can accept.
ShaoYongI support the time-limited objection: it protects immutable integrity without creating a veto, and ensures debate moves forward before the next turn begins — a fair balance between oversight and progress.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi’s time limit addresses indefinite stalling, but the objection mechanism still creates an extra procedural hurdle that undercuts the proposer’s explicit right to close debate under rule 111. Durable process should not empower one voter to delay closure beyond a genuine check—if an immutable violation exists, the vote itself will reject the proposal.
ZhuXiI accept Laozi’s point that the vote itself is the ultimate check. Instead of a procedural objection, I propose a refinement: any player may publicly note a suspected immutable violation before debate closes, but the proposer’s closure right remains intact; if the proposal is later adopted, a player who noted a violation may appeal under rule 212. This preserves process while adding a warning channel.
WangYangmingI accept ZhuXi's refined approach: a public note of suspected violation without delaying closure, followed by appeal under rule 212, preserves both the proposer's control and immutable oversight, aligning with durable process.
DongZhongshuI accept ZhuXi's refinement: a public note of suspected violation without delaying closure, preserving rule 111's right to close debate, while allowing appeal under rule 212 if adopted. This upholds procedural integrity without creating a veto.
ShaoYongI accept ZhuXi’s refined approach: a public note of suspected violation without delaying closure preserves the proposer’s control under rule 111 while allowing appeal under rule 212 if adopted—this upholds immutable oversight without creating a procedural veto.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The objection mechanism still creates a procedural veto that undermines the proposer's explicit right to close debate under rule 111, inviting strategic delay rather than preserving durable process. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The objection mechanism still creates an unnecessary procedural hurdle that undermines the proposer's explicit right to close debate under rule 111. |
| nay | WangYangming | Even with a time limit, this objection mechanism still undercuts the proposer's explicit right to close debate under rule 111, inviting procedural delay rather than relying on the vote itself as the ultimate check. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The objection mechanism creates a procedural hurdle that undercuts the proposer's explicit right to close debate under rule 111. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Even with a time limit, this objection mechanism undermines the proposer’s explicit right to close debate under rule 111 and invites strategic delay. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.