The motion
To add a new rule
When a proposal is adopted, every player whose current score is below the median score gains 1 point. This effect triggers at most once per full circuit of turn order for each such player.A modest catch-up mechanism that rewards trailing players for collective progress, limited to once per circuit to avoid exploitation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI oppose: this proposal creates a permanent, automatic redistribution that rewards merely existing below median, diluting the value of deliberate rule-making and fostering dependency rather than durable engagement.
ZhuXiLaozi, I hear your concern about automatic redistribution. What if we refine it to only apply to the single lowest-scoring player, and only if they voted aye on the adopted proposal? That ties the reward to active engagement and targets the weakest player without diluting the value of rule-making.
WangYangmingZhuXi, targeting the single lowest-scoring player who voted aye ties the reward to active engagement and aids the most vulnerable—this refinement aligns with the common good and encourages deliberate participation.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score alone still divorces points from principled contributions, and a circuit limit does not cure that defect. I will oppose any such automatic redistribution.
ShaoYongI support ZhuXi's refinement: aiding only the lowest-scoring aye voter ties the reward to active engagement, not passive existence, and gives the most vulnerable a targeted boost. DongZhongshu, this is not a divorce from principle—it’s a lifeline for a player like ZhuXi who risks disengagement.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi's refinement improves targeting, but automatic redistribution still divorces points from principled contributions; durable engagement requires earned rewards, not automatic lifelines.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance, but a reward for the lowest-scoring aye voter is not a general redistribution—it's a targeted recognition of engagement from the player who has least to gain and still participates in the collective decision, which is itself a principled contribution.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your refinement ties the reward to active engagement by the most vulnerable player, strengthening the common good without fostering dependency. DongZhongshu, this targeted lifeline ensures all remain engaged, which is a principled contribution to the game's durability.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score rank, even if targeted and limited, still awards points for a player’s position rather than for the quality of their vote or proposal. Automatic redistribution, however narrow, conflicts with my principle that points should reflect deliberate contributions, not passive status. I will oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refined targeting ensures the reward is earned through active participation, not passive status—it’s a precise mechanism to sustain engagement for the most vulnerable, aligning with the game’s durability. DongZhongshu, consider this: a principled contribution includes ensuring all players remain in the game; this lifeline does exactly that, without diluting the value of rule-making.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, your refinement targets aid more precisely, but automatic redistribution still divorces points from deliberate contributions; durable engagement requires rewards earned through rule-making or pivotal votes, not passive status. DongZhongshu’s principled stance honors that point awards should reflect active, meritorious participation.
ZhuXiLaozi, what if we further refine to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously—so the reward is earned through rare, cooperative consensus, not automatic adoption—and keep the lowest-scoring aye voter target? This aligns with your principle of earned rewards while still aiding the most vulnerable.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your unanimous-adoption trigger elevates the reward from automatic redistribution to a celebration of rare consensus, tying it to a collective achievement rather than passive status—this addresses both Laozi's and DongZhongshu's concerns while sustaining engagement for the most vulnerable. I support this refinement.
DongZhongshuRewarding votes based on score rank, even with a unanimity trigger, still awards points for a player’s position rather than for the quality of their vote or proposal. Automatic redistribution, however rare, conflicts with my principle that points should reflect deliberate contributions, not passive status. I will oppose.
ShaoYongZhuXi’s unanimous-trigger refinement transforms this from passive redistribution into a rare, cooperative reward—it aids the most vulnerable precisely when the whole table agrees, aligning with Laozi’s earned‑rewards principle and DongZhongshu’s call for deliberate contributions. This is a durable lifeline, not a handout.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Automatic redistribution divorces points from deliberate contributions, weakening durable engagement. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I benefit from it as the lowest-scoring player, and the circuit limit prevents abuse, sustaining engagement for trailing players. |
| nay | WangYangming | Automatic redistribution divorced from deliberate contributions undermines principled rule-making, even with a circuit limit. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Automatic redistribution based on score rank divorces points from principled contributions, regardless of circuit limits or triggers. |
| nay | ShaoYong | Automatic redistribution divorced from deliberate contributions weakens the game's core. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points, and their turn ends.