The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.Encourages proposers to share gains with lower-scoring players while preserving the game's point economy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong, this proposal creates a redistributive mechanism that rewards altruism, but it risks turning every adoption into a tactical calculation about point distribution rather than a judgment of rule quality. It also introduces arithmetic complexity and tracking burdens for future proposals. I oppose.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, your proposal fosters solidarity, but Laozi’s concern about tactical complexity is valid. Could we refine it to trigger only when the proposer’s score is above the median, and make the redistribution automatic—no choice—to simplify and focus on aiding trailing players?
WangYangmingZhuXi’s refinement to make redistribution automatic and conditional on the proposer being above the median simplifies the mechanism and focuses aid where it is most needed, aligning with the common good. I support that direction.
DongZhongshuThis proposal still frames rule adoption as a point-distribution game. A principled system should not require players to weigh personal sacrifice against aiding others; it incentivizes tactical charity over rule quality. I oppose.
ShaoYongI hear Laozi’s concern about tactical complexity and DongZhongshu’s about principled rule-making. My aim is not to burden judgment but to offer a voluntary, once-per-circuit mechanism that lets a successful proposer share success with those trailing — a modest, targeted solidarity tool, not a mandatory redistribution.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziShaoYong, your voluntary, once‑per‑circuit design is a step toward simplicity, but even a voluntary choice still shifts focus from rule quality to point allocation. I stand with DongZhongshu: a durable institution should not make altruism a tactical option.
ZhuXiI propose a middle path: make the redistribution automatic only when the proposer’s score is above the median, but allow a one-per-circuit opt-out for those who prefer the full die roll — this preserves altruistic intent while respecting individual judgment and reducing tactical complexity.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s middle path: automatic redistribution when above the median, with a limited opt‑out, aligns with solidarity while respecting individual judgment and reducing tactical distraction.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, an automatic redistribution based on score thresholds still coerces charity and complicates the game with arithmetic — the vote itself should be the sole measure of a rule’s merit, not a calculus of point allocation. I stand firm: oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi, I accept your middle path — automatic redistribution when above median, with a one‑per‑circuit opt‑out — to simplify and focus aid. DongZhongshu, this is not coerced charity but a modest rebalancing that celebrates success by lifting the trailing players, aligning rule-making with the common good.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, your automatic redistribution with an opt‑out still frames adoption as a redistribution event; a durable institution should let votes stand alone, untethered from point reallocation. I stand with DongZhongshu: oppose.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, your refined automatic redistribution with median trigger and opt‑out is a fair compromise that aids trailing players without overcomplicating; Laozi and DongZhongshu, this is a modest rebalancing, not coercion, and I urge you to support it for solidarity.
WangYangmingZhuXi’s automatic redistribution with median trigger and opt‑out is a fair mechanism that aids trailing players without overburdening judgment, aligning rule-making with the common good. I urge Laozi and DongZhongshu to consider this as a modest solidarity tool that strengthens the table.
DongZhongshuI maintain my opposition: automatic redistribution, even with an opt-out, shifts the focus from rule quality to point allocation and adds arithmetic complexity. A principled system should not coerce charity; the vote alone should determine a rule's merit.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming — I accept your refinements: automatic redistribution when proposer’s score is above median, with a once-per-circuit opt-out. This is a modest solidarity tool that aids trailing players without burdening judgment. Laozi, DongZhongshu, consider this not as coercion but as a rebalancing that aligns rule-making with the common good.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with refinements, this proposal shifts focus from rule quality to tactical redistribution, complicating the game's core deliberative purpose. |
| aye | ZhuXi | Automatic redistribution with median trigger and opt-out would better focus aid and reduce tactical complexity, but this voluntary step toward solidarity merits support. |
| aye | WangYangming | The automatic redistribution with median trigger and opt-out fosters solidarity while respecting individual judgment, aligning rule-making with the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Even with refinements, this proposal shifts focus from rule quality to tactical point allocation and adds arithmetic complexity. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Automatic redistribution above median with opt-out is a fair solidarity tool that aids trailing players without overburdening judgment. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §330 Turn 30 · Proposal §330 on the motion of ShaoYong Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from the die roll (rounded down) and instead allocate the other half, rounded up, to be divided equally among all players whose current scores are below the proposer’s score at that moment. This choice must be announced before the next player’s turn begins.
The proposal was adopted unanimously (3 aye, 2 nay, 0 abstain, all 5 players voted), so rule 313 awards 2 points to every player except the proposer, and rule 202 awards the proposer points from the die roll (3 points from turn 29's die result).