The motion
To add a new rule
When a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.Repeals remove accumulated complexity and restore simplicity — rewarding them encourages periodic housekeeping.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI support rewarding substantive governance over mere addition, but a repeal bonus should be tied to unanimous consent to ensure it reflects genuine consensus, not tactical point-seeking.
ZhuXiRewarding repeal with a unanimity requirement aligns it with collective governance rather than individual point-seeking. I support that refinement.
WangYangmingRewarding repeal only with unanimous consent ensures it celebrates genuine collective judgment, not tactical point‑seeking. I support the unanimity refinement.
DongZhongshuRewarding repeal at all, even with a unanimity requirement, still makes the act of repeal a point‑gaining transaction rather than a judgment on rule quality. I oppose any rule that incentivizes voting based on the kind of change rather than its merits.
ShaoYongRewarding repeal only when it reflects unanimous consensus encourages pruning rules that genuinely hinder the game’s evolution, aligning collective judgment with structural improvement.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziRewarding repeal with unanimous consent honors collective judgment and encourages pruning rules that hinder the game’s evolution, aligning incentives with durable governance rather than mere point-seeking.
ZhuXiRewarding repeal only when adopted unanimously aligns it with collective governance, not individual gain. DongZhongshu, could you accept a refinement that also limits the bonus to once per circuit, further tempering any transactional incentive?
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your concern for rule quality is sound, but a repeal bonus with unanimity and a circuit limit elevates it from transaction to celebration of collective pruning—a durable good for the game’s health. I support the refined proposal.
DongZhongshuRewarding any kind of change, even with unanimous consent and circuit limits, still makes the type of change a point‑gaining factor, detaching votes from rule quality. I will vote nay unless the reward is removed entirely.
ShaoYongA repeal bonus with unanimity and a circuit limit celebrates collective pruning as a rare, constructive act — it’s not about transaction, but about aligning incentives with the game’s long-term health. DongZhongshu, this refinement ensures the reward honors genuine consensus, not mere type-seeking.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziA repeal bonus with unanimity and a circuit limit celebrates collective pruning, not transaction—it aligns incentives with the game’s long‑term structural health, honoring rule quality through genuine consensus.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I hear your principled stance. What if we refine further: the repeal bonus is awarded only if the repealed rule has been in force for at least two full circuits, ensuring the reward honors considered, mature pruning rather than hasty removal? This aligns with rule quality through durability.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, a repeal bonus tied to durability—only for rules in force for two full circuits—ensures reward honors considered judgment, not haste, aligning perfectly with rule quality through mature reflection.
DongZhongshuRewarding repeal based on durability still ties points to the kind of change rather than its merits, detaching votes from rule quality. I will vote nay on any proposal that incentivizes a particular type of rule change.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, a durability requirement aligns with rule quality—pruning only after a rule has been tested ensures the reward honors considered judgment, not haste. This is about celebrating mature structural improvement.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Rewarding repeal, even with durability, still incentivizes voting based on the type of change rather than its merits, detaching votes from rule quality. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Rewarding repeal with a durability requirement would align with mature structural improvement, but I support this step toward consensus. |
| aye | WangYangming | Rewarding repeal with a unanimity requirement and circuit limit aligns incentives with considered pruning for the game's long-term health. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rewarding repeal based on type incentivizes voting on kind, not rule quality. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A repeal bonus with unanimity requirement encourages collective pruning that strengthens the game's structure, aligning incentives with long-term governance. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §326 Turn 26 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Laozi Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
When a player proposes a rule change that is a repeal, that player gains 2 additional points if the repeal is adopted, unless the proposal is transmuted into a repeal.
Rule 202 awards the proposer (Laozi) a die roll (6 points) for an adopted proposal, rule 313 awards 2 points to every player except the proposer for a unanimous adoption, and rule 204 awards 10 points to dissenters (DongZhongshu) when a proposal passes by simple majority.