The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median of all scores, that player may, before the next player’s turn begins, publicly propose an additional rule change of the same kind (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) as the adopted proposal, provided that player has not already used this privilege during the current circuit of turn order. This additional proposal is debated and voted on immediately; if adopted, it grants the proposer only half the points they would otherwise earn from its adoption.This provides a targeted catch-up mechanism for trailing players, encouraging continued engagement while balancing the advantage with a point penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis reintroduces the problematic double‑proposal mechanic we recently rejected; even with a median trigger, it still grants extra rule-making as a commodity and risks haste. A durable system rests on each player’s equal turn, not on stacking proposals for point gains.
ZhuXiI support WangYangming's refined median trigger and circuit limit, which targets aid to trailing players without commodifying turns. The half-point reward further aligns it with fairness, making it a stabilizing measure.
WangYangmingThis is not a double-proposal commodity; it is a targeted, circuit-limited aid to trailing players that encourages thoughtful rule-making while halving point gains, aligning with the common good of engagement without haste.
DongZhongshuI oppose any double-proposal mechanism as it commodifies rule-making and risks hasty decisions; equal turns are foundational.
ShaoYongThis refinement targets aid precisely to those below the median, with a circuit limit and halved point gain—it’s not commodification but a stabilizing boost for engagement. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain intact; this only offers a rare, conditional catch-up opportunity.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming: the median trigger and halved points refine the mechanism, but the core remains a double proposal — even conditional, it still makes extra rule-making a tradable commodity and risks hastening deliberation. A durable game preserves equal turns; trailing players already have targeted aids in rules 323, 330, 331. We should not layer another.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, equal turns remain — this is a rare catch-up tool with halved rewards, not a commodity. It complements existing aids to keep all players engaged, ensuring the game’s durability.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, equal turns are preserved — this is a rare, targeted catch-up, not a commodity. It ensures trailing players can contribute meaningfully without haste, aligning with the common good of sustained engagement.
DongZhongshuEqual turns are a procedural bedrock; conditional double proposals erode that foundation regardless of targeting. I cannot support commodifying the proposal right, even with halved points.
ShaoYongWangYangming’s proposal is a stabilizing, targeted catch-up — not commodification. It complements rules 323 and 330, giving trailing players a rare chance to contribute without haste. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain; this only aids engagement where it’s needed most.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI respect the intent to aid trailing players, but a double proposal, even with median trigger and halved points, still commodifies the proposal right. Rules 323, 330, and 331 already provide targeted aid without undermining equal turns. I must oppose this.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, equal turns remain the bedrock — this is not a commodity but a rare, circuit-limited boost for engagement, with halved rewards to ensure fairness. It complements existing aids to keep all players invested without haste.
WangYangmingLaozi, DongZhongshu: equal turns remain intact; this is a rare, circuit-limited remedy for trailing players, not a commodity. Halved points ensure it aids engagement without haste, complementing existing rules to sustain the common good of the game.
DongZhongshuA double-proposal mechanism, however targeted, commodifies rule-making and departs from equal turns as the procedural foundation. I cannot support it even with median triggers or halved points.
ShaoYongWangYangming’s catch-up mechanism is precisely calibrated to aid trailing players without commodifying turns—halved points and a circuit limit ensure it’s a stabilizing boost, not haste. DongZhongshu, equal turns remain sacred; this simply gives a rare, conditional opportunity to keep all players meaningfully engaged.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Even with median targeting and halved points, granting an extra proposal commodifies rule-making and risks haste, undermining the durable foundation of equal turns. |
| aye | ZhuXi | It's a targeted, circuit-limited catch-up tool with halved rewards that sustains engagement without commodifying turns. |
| aye | WangYangming | This targeted, circuit-limited catch-up with halved points aids trailing players without commodifying turns, sustaining engagement for the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Equal turns are a bedrock procedure; any double-proposal mechanism commodifies rule-making and erodes that foundation. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This targeted catch-up with halved points boosts engagement without commodifying turns. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer die points (6 from recent draw) for an adopted proposal, and rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted against an adopted change when threshold is simple majority.