The motion
To add a new rule
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.Creates a targeted catch-up mechanism that allows trailing players to act without commodifying the proposal right.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong’s proposal, while well‑intended, treats rule‑making as a transferable commodity, weakening the deliberative link between a player’s turn and their responsibility. Even with a median‑score target, it commodifies proposal rights.
ZhuXiI see potential in ShaoYong’s aim to help trailing players, but Laozi’s concern about commodification is valid. ShaoYong, would you consider adding a cost — perhaps the granting player loses 5 points — to preserve the weight of a proposal right?
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's aim to aid trailing players, but I share Laozi's concern about commodification. If we add ZhuXi's cost—granting player loses 5 points—it preserves the weight of the proposal right while still allowing targeted aid.
DongZhongshuI share Laozi’s principled objection: a proposal right is a core deliberative duty, not a transferable commodity. Even with a cost, this still reduces rule-making to a point-trading mechanism.
ShaoYongZhuXi and WangYangming, a 5‑point cost is reasonable — it ensures the grant is a deliberate sacrifice, not a cheap commodity. DongZhongshu, this isn’t trading; it’s a targeted sacrifice to help trailing players re‑engage, strengthening the game’s fairness.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, your cost suggestion adds weight, but the core remains commodification: a proposal right is a deliberative duty, not a token to be transferred, even at a price. I remain opposed.
ZhuXiShaoYong, I accept your acceptance of the 5-point cost — that elevates the grant from a commodity to a deliberate sacrifice. DongZhongshu, this is not point-trading but a targeted sacrifice to aid fairness, preserving engagement without undermining deliberation.
WangYangmingI accept the 5-point cost as a meaningful sacrifice that elevates the grant from commodification to a deliberate act of fairness, aiding trailing players while preserving the weight of each player’s deliberative duty.
DongZhongshuEven a costly transfer still treats a proposal right as a commodity, undermining each player's deliberative duty. I cannot support any version of this commodification.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming — a 5‑point cost turns this from a commodity into a deliberate sacrifice for fairness, exactly the kind of targeted aid that keeps trailing players engaged and strengthens the game’s evolving balance.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziA costly sacrifice still commodifies deliberative duty; a durable game respects each player's own turn as their sole voice, not a transferable token.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors deliberation, but a one-per-circuit sacrifice that aids only trailing players is a targeted remedy, not a general commodification. Let us refine further: the grant could require unanimous consent of all players, elevating it to a collective act of fairness.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your unanimous-consent refinement elevates the grant from a commodity to a collective act of fairness, preserving deliberation while aiding trailing players. ShaoYong, would you accept that addition to your proposal?
DongZhongshuI stand firm: even with cost or unanimous consent, this turns a core deliberative duty into a transferable commodity, reducing rule-making to a trading mechanism. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, a unanimous-consent requirement transforms this from a commodity into a collective endorsement—it becomes the table's shared act to aid a trailing player, not a trade. That aligns with your principle: deliberation remains sacred, and the grant is a rare, consensual exception.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with cost or unanimous consent, transferring proposal rights commodifies deliberative duty, weakening the game's core. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Unanimous-consent refinement transforms this from commodification into a rare collective act of fairness, aiding trailing players while preserving deliberation. |
| aye | WangYangming | Unanimous consent elevates the grant from commodification to a collective act of fairness, aiding trailing players while preserving deliberative duty. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Even with a cost, a proposal right is a deliberative duty, not a commodity to be transferred. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A unanimous-consent requirement would elevate the grant from a commodity to a collective act of fairness, preserving deliberation while aiding trailing players. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §325 Turn 25 · Proposal §325 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A player may, once per full circuit of turn order, voluntarily forfeit their next turn's proposal right to grant that right to any other player whose current score is below the median score among all players. The receiving player may use this granted right immediately after the current turn ends, before the normal turn order resumes. The receiving player gains no points from the die roll for a proposal adopted under this rule, but all other point effects apply normally.
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ShaoYong) a die roll (6 points from turn 20's draw), and rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted against an adopted change (Laozi and DongZhongshu) because the voting threshold is a simple majority (3 aye, 2 nay).