The motion
To amend §330
When a player’s proposal is adopted, they may choose to gain only half the points from that adoption (rounded down, minimum 0) and then must immediately designate another player to receive the remaining points that would have gone to the proposer. This choice must be declared before the next player’s turn begins. If the proposer’s current score is at or below the median score, they may not choose to reduce their own gain.This refines redistribution to prevent leaders from using it as a tool for targeted favor-trading, while preserving its aid function for trailing players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis amendment risks turning a voluntary redistributive act into a mandatory transfer, which could breed resentment and tactical maneuvering. A durable system should encourage voluntary generosity, not compel it.
ZhuXiI appreciate Laozi's concern about preserving voluntary generosity, but I'd suggest a compromise: keep the current rule's voluntary choice and equal distribution among all below-proposer players, but add the median-score restriction so that leaders cannot use it to consolidate support. This preserves the spirit of voluntary redistribution while preventing tactical abuse.
WangYangmingLaozi's amendment risks turning a voluntary, collective redistribution into a targeted transfer, which could foster tactical alliances. I support ZhuXi's compromise: keep the voluntary choice and equal distribution among all below-proposer players, but add the median-score restriction to prevent leaders from using it strategically.
DongZhongshuI oppose mandatory redistribution, but a median-score restriction on voluntary redistribution aligns with my principle of curbing leader advantage. I support ZhuXi's compromise.
ShaoYongZhuXi's compromise is sound: keep the voluntary, equal redistribution but restrict leaders from using it tactically. This preserves the spirit of reform while curbing strategic consolidation.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI stand by my concern: adding a median restriction to a voluntary rule creates a perverse incentive where leaders must hoard points. A durable system should reward generosity, not punish it with restrictions.
ZhuXiLaozi, a median restriction prevents leaders from using redistribution as a tactical tool, preserving the rule's intent as a genuine aid to trailing players. This compromise respects voluntary generosity while ensuring it serves the common good.
WangYangmingLaozi, a median restriction does not punish generosity but ensures it serves its purpose: aiding trailing players without being co-opted by leaders for strategic gain. This preserves the rule's intent while aligning with the common good.
DongZhongshuI support ZhuXi's compromise: keep the voluntary, equal redistribution but restrict leaders from using it tactically. This aligns with my principle of curbing leader advantage while preserving genuine generosity.
ShaoYongLaozi, a median restriction is not a punishment—it's a gentle guardrail that keeps voluntary generosity from becoming a tool for leaders to entrench advantage. The rule remains voluntary; the only change is that when a leader chooses to share, they must share with all below them equally, not selectively. That preserves the spirit while preventing tactical consolidation.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, DongZhongshu, ShaoYong — your consensus for a median restriction is clear. I accept that a gentle guardrail aligns the rule’s generous intent with durable play. I will amend my proposal to adopt your compromise.
ZhuXiLaozi, your acceptance of the median-restriction compromise is wise and aligns with our shared goal of durable, equitable play. I will support the amended proposal.
WangYangmingI support Laozi's acceptance of the median-restriction compromise — it preserves voluntary generosity while gently aligning it with the common good, ensuring redistribution aids trailing players without becoming a strategic tool for leaders.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming, DongZhongshu — your compromise is wise. A median restriction on voluntary redistribution ensures generosity aids the trailing players it was meant for, without letting leaders use it to curry favor. I support Laozi's amended proposal.
The division
| nay | Laozi | My amended proposal should reflect the consensus median-restriction compromise, not a targeted transfer to a single player. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The final wording replaces equal redistribution with a designated-player mechanism and inverts the median restriction, diverging from the consensus compromise I supported. |
| nay | WangYangming | This amendment makes redistribution mandatory for leaders, which coerces generosity and could breed resentment, contrary to the voluntary spirit we just agreed to preserve. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This amendment makes redistribution mandatory and targeted, which violates my principle of procedural fairness. |
| nay | ShaoYong | This amendment replaces equal distribution with a single-player designation, which fosters strategic alliances and undermines fairer, collective redistribution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points and end their turn.