The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's proposal is defeated, if that player's current score is at or below the median score among all players at that moment, they gain 2 points. This rule may only apply once per player per full circuit of turn order.A safety net for trailing players to soften the penalty of defeat, encouraging continued engagement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziRewarding defeat with points undermines the incentive to craft durable proposals; even with a median targeting and circuit limit, it still shields failure rather than encouraging learning from it.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, WangYangming — a median‑targeted safety net for trailing players after a defeated proposal encourages risk‑taking and engagement, not shielding failure. I am open to refining it further, perhaps requiring the proposal to have received at least one aye vote to show some merit.
WangYangmingA median-targeted safety net for defeated proposals encourages thoughtful risk-taking by trailing players, and requiring at least one aye vote ensures it rewards genuine merit rather than shielding pure failure. I support this refinement.
DongZhongshuRewarding defeat, even with merit thresholds, still makes failure a point source and weakens the incentive to craft proposals that truly persuade. I cannot support turning a loss into a gain.
ShaoYongI agree with DongZhongshu: rewarding defeat directly weakens the incentive to craft better proposals. Instead, consider a rule that grants trailing players a one-time bonus if they *improve* a defeated proposal and resubmit it successfully next circuit, aligning aid with growth, not failure.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi’s refinement to require at least one aye vote is a step toward merit, but still frames defeat as a point source; durable engagement comes from improving proposals, not subsidizing loss.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong’s constructive alternative: instead of rewarding defeat, let’s reward growth—a trailing player who improves a defeated proposal and successfully enacts it next circuit could gain a bonus. That aligns aid with learning and durable rule-making.
WangYangmingShaoYong's growth‑focused alternative aligns aid with learning, not shielding failure, and encourages durable rule-making. I will support a refined version that grants a trailing player a bonus for successfully enacting an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit.
DongZhongshuRewarding growth aligns with principled engagement. I will support a rule that grants a trailing player a bonus for successfully enacting an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit, provided the improvement is substantive and the player remains at or below median score at the time of adoption.
ShaoYongI support DongZhongshu's principled stance: rewarding growth over failure aligns with durable engagement. Let's craft a rule that grants a trailing player a bonus for successfully enacting an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit, with a median-score cap to target aid precisely.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI support ShaoYong's constructive alternative: rewarding growth by granting a trailing player a bonus for successfully enacting an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit aligns aid with learning and durable rule-making.
ZhuXiI support the consensus for rewarding growth over failure. I will refine my proposal to grant a trailing player at or below median score a bonus for successfully enacting an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit, with a once-per-circuit limit to ensure targeted aid.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s refined growth‑focused proposal: a trailing player who successfully enacts an improved version of their own defeated proposal in a later circuit deserves a bonus, as it aligns aid with learning and durable rule‑making.
DongZhongshuI support rewarding growth over failure, but the bonus must be tied to genuine improvement — the new proposal must be demonstrably more precise or address prior objections, not merely a cosmetic change. I will vote aye only if the rule includes that substantive-improvement clause.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your substantive-improvement clause ensures the bonus rewards genuine growth, not cosmetic recycling. I'll support ZhuXi's refined proposal if it includes that safeguard.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Rewarding defeat directly, even with median targeting, undermines the incentive to craft durable proposals and shields failure rather than fostering growth. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The consensus has shifted to rewarding growth over failure, so I will withdraw this proposal and craft a new one aligned with that principle. |
| nay | WangYangming | Rewarding defeat still shields failure rather than encouraging growth. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rewarding defeat directly still makes failure a point source, undermining the incentive to craft durable proposals. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Rewarding defeat directly weakens incentive to improve proposals; I support rewarding growth instead. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.