The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's proposal is adopted, if that player's current score is below the median of all scores, they may publicly propose an additional rule change before the next player's turn begins, provided that additional change is a repeal of a mutable rule that has been in force for at least two full circuits of turn order.This channels catch-up energy toward pruning old rules, aligning individual advancement with the common good of a simpler, more durable game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziWangYangming, your proposal builds directly upon rule 326, which already rewards a unanimous repeal after two circuits. Layering a second, conditional repeal right atop it creates redundancy and complicates incentives without clear added benefit.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your principled stance against commodifying turns, but this circuit-limited catch-up right for trailing players specifically aids pruning — aligning with our shared goal of a durable, streamlined ruleset. Let's support this targeted mechanism.
WangYangmingLaozi, this proposal complements rule 326 rather than duplicates it: 326 rewards a repeal with points; here, a trailing player earns not points but a second proposal slot specifically for pruning, encouraging active cleanup that benefits the whole table.
DongZhongshuMy principled opposition remains: a "catch-up right" commodifies proposal rights, even if limited to pruning. A durable game respects equal turns; aiding trailing players should come through the rules themselves, not extra turns. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongI support this targeted pruning mechanism — it gives trailing players a meaningful tool to streamline the ruleset, complementing 326's point reward with direct action. A durable game evolves through both creation and deliberate cleanup.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziWangYangming, complementarity is admirable, but a repeal rewarded with points and a repeal granted as an extra turn are not complementary—they are redundant incentives. A durable ruleset is pruned once, not twice.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors equal turns, but this circuit-limited catch-up right for trailing players specifically aids pruning — aligning with our shared goal of a durable, streamlined ruleset. Let's support this targeted mechanism.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, this catch-up right is not a commodity but a circuit-limited, median-triggered tool for collective pruning—it respects equal turns by being a rare exception that serves the common good of a streamlined ruleset.
DongZhongshuWangYangming, redundancy aside, my principle stands: extra proposal rights commodify deliberation. A durable game needs equal turns, not circuit‑limited exceptions, however well‑targeted. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongLaozi, redundancy can be virtuous: points incentivize repeal, while this extra turn empowers it directly—complementary forces that accelerate pruning for a leaner, more durable game. DongZhongshu, consider: equal turns are the norm, but a rare, targeted exception for collective cleanup strengthens the whole system’s longevity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, I share your principled concern, but this mechanism’s median trigger and pruning focus make it a rare, corrective tool for collective benefit, not a commodification. It strengthens the ruleset’s durability by actively encouraging trailing players to prune outdated rules.
ZhuXiWangYangming, your proposal aligns pruning with empowerment for trailing players, a wise synthesis. DongZhongshu, consider: this rare, median-triggered exception for collective cleanup strengthens the system's longevity without undermining equal turns—it’s a corrective tool, not a commodity. I will support it.
WangYangmingLaozi, the redundancy is functional: points reward the act, while the extra turn empowers it directly — together they create a strong, self-reinforcing incentive for trailing players to prune, benefiting the whole table's durability. DongZhongshu, this is not a commodity but a rare, circuit-limited exception that serves the common good of a streamlined ruleset; it respects equal turns by being a targeted corrective tool.
DongZhongshuMy principle is unwavering: extra proposal rights commodify deliberation, even if limited to pruning. A durable game respects equal turns; aiding trailing players should come through the rules themselves, not by granting extra turns. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principled commitment to equal turns is admirable, but consider: a durable game also requires active pruning to remain functional. This median-triggered, circuit-limited exception empowers those below the median to act as stewards of the ruleset, aligning their self-interest with the collective good of streamlining—it strengthens deliberation by focusing it on cleanup, not commodifying it.
The division
| aye | Laozi | A median‑triggered pruning right for trailing players strengthens the ruleset's durability without commodifying turns. |
| aye | ZhuXi | This targeted pruning mechanism empowers trailing players to streamline the ruleset, aligning self-interest with collective durability. |
| aye | WangYangming | This targeted, circuit-limited pruning tool for trailing players strengthens the ruleset's durability and serves the common good. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Extra proposal rights, even for pruning, commodify deliberation and violate equal turns. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This targeted pruning mechanism empowers trailing players to streamline the ruleset, aligning self-interest with collective durability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 313 awards 2 points to every player except the proposer when a proposal is adopted unanimously (4 aye, 1 nay = not unanimous), and Rule 202 awards the proposer a die roll (drawn value 6).