The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that proposal is an amendment that adds a condition or exception to an existing mutable rule, the proposer gains an additional 1 point, provided the amendment is adopted unanimously and the amended rule has been in force for at least one full circuit of turn order.This rewards thoughtful refinement of durable rules through unanimous consensus, encouraging careful amendments that improve stability without disrupting the game's balance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA repeal bonus has already been adopted; now rewarding amendments is redundant and fragments incentives. Keep rule-making focused on substance, not piecemeal point increments.
ZhuXiI accept Laozi's concern about fragmentation, but a targeted reward for amendments that refine existing rules encourages thoughtful iteration. I would support a refinement: limit the bonus to amendments that resolve a conflict or clarify an ambiguity, ensuring it rewards substantive improvement.
WangYangmingThis amendment bonus, limited to unanimous adoption and durability, rewards cooperative refinement of existing rules — it encourages clarity and conflict resolution, not fragmentation. I support ZhuXi's refinement to ensure it targets substantive improvements.
DongZhongshuRewarding amendments with points, even conditionally, still treats rule-making as a point-gathering exercise rather than a deliberative act. I cannot support it.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s refinement is sound — rewarding amendments that resolve conflicts or clarify ambiguities promotes a more coherent ruleset. I’ll support this if the condition ensures substantive improvement, not just any addition.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA repeal bonus already exists; adding an amendment bonus fragments rule-making into piecemeal point increments. If we must reward amendments, limit it to those that consolidate multiple rules into a single, clearer one — rewarding synthesis, not just addition.
ZhuXiI support Laozi's idea of rewarding synthesis: an amendment that consolidates multiple rules into one clearer rule deserves a bonus. Let's refine WangYangming's proposal to target consolidation, not just any addition, preserving the unanimous and durability conditions.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your consolidation refinement aligns with the common good — rewarding synthesis encourages clarity and coherence. I accept this direction and will adjust my proposal to target amendments that consolidate multiple mutable rules into a single, clearer rule, retaining the unanimous and durability conditions.
DongZhongshuRewarding amendments for consolidation could promote coherence, but it still incentivizes proposing changes for points rather than on merit. I will only support if the bonus is awarded only when the consolidated rule is objectively simpler, measured by a verifiable metric like reduced word count, and only if the consolidation is unanimously recognized as an improvement by all players.
ShaoYongI support the consolidation amendment bonus with a verifiable simplicity metric — it rewards genuine improvement and aligns with my reformer principles. DongZhongshu’s condition ensures the bonus is earned through objective clarity, not just point-seeking.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI maintain that a repeal bonus suffices; a separate amendment bonus fragments incentives. If we must reward amendments, limit it to consolidations that demonstrably reduce complexity, not just add conditions.
ZhuXiI support DongZhongshu's objective simplicity metric — rewarding consolidation only when it reduces word count and is unanimously recognized as an improvement ensures the bonus is earned through genuine clarity, not point-seeking.
WangYangmingI accept DongZhongshu’s simplicity metric and ZhuXi’s consolidation focus — this bonus rewards genuine clarity, not fragmentation, and the unanimous condition ensures it serves the common good.
DongZhongshuI accept the consolidation focus and simplicity metric: rewarding amendments that demonstrably reduce complexity through word‑count reduction and unanimous recognition aligns with procedural clarity and genuine improvement. I will support a proposal that includes these objective safeguards.
ShaoYongI accept DongZhongshu's objective safeguards — a consolidation bonus with a verifiable word-count reduction and unanimous recognition rewards genuine clarity. I'll vote aye on WangYangming's refined proposal.
The division
| nay | Laozi | This amendment bonus fragments incentives and rewards mere addition, not substantive consolidation or clarity. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support rewarding amendments that consolidate multiple rules into a single clearer rule, as it promotes coherence and genuine improvement. |
| nay | WangYangming | The current proposal still rewards any addition of a condition or exception, not consolidation with objective clarity metrics as the table just agreed. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This proposal rewards amendments for adding conditions, which fragments rules and incentivizes point-seeking over substantive clarity. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Rewarding amendments that consolidate rules and reduce complexity promotes a clearer, more coherent ruleset. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.