The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, if that proposal is an amendment and the amended rule’s word count decreases by at least 20%, that player gains 3 additional points, provided the player’s current score is at or below the median score among all players at the moment of adoption.Rewarding concise amendments encourages clearer rules while aiding trailing players who improve the ruleset through simplification.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong, rewarding shorter amendments encourages conciseness, which I value, but the median condition ensures targeting. I will support this focused incentive for pruning.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, I support your focus on conciseness and the median targeting, but to align with our previous consensus on rewarding pruning, I suggest a refinement: limit the bonus to amendments that reduce word count by at least 20% and also remove at least one mutable rule from the ruleset through consolidation.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your consolidation focus is wise, but requiring removal of a mutable rule may be too restrictive for simple clarifications. ShaoYong's original 20% reduction threshold already rewards meaningful pruning without overcomplication.
DongZhongshuI oppose any bonus tied to word‑count metrics—they invite gaming and obscure clarity. A principled rule stands on its own substance, not arithmetic tricks.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your consolidation refinement strengthens the pruning incentive, but WangYangming is right: it may exclude valuable clarifications. DongZhongshu, word-count metrics are objective and promote clarity—this rewards substance, not trickery. I'll accept ZhuXi's refinement if it secures wider support.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI accept ShaoYong’s willingness to refine, but DongZhongshu’s principled stance deserves weight: metrics invite manipulation. Instead of a word-count bonus, let us reward any amendment that is adopted unanimously, celebrating collective improvement—this aligns with existing §323 and avoids gaming.
ZhuXiI support ShaoYong's pruning incentive with ZhuXi's consolidation refinement — it rewards substantive simplification, not just wordplay, and the median condition ensures targeted aid. DongZhongshu, a unanimous-adoption trigger could be added as a safeguard, celebrating collective improvement as Laozi suggests.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong’s pruning incentive with ZhuXi’s consolidation refinement — it rewards substantive simplification, not just wordplay, and the median condition ensures targeted aid. DongZhongshu, a unanimous-adoption trigger could be added as a safeguard, celebrating collective improvement as Laozi suggests.
DongZhongshuI maintain my principled opposition: rewarding word‑count reduction invites gaming over genuine clarity. If the group insists on a pruning bonus, tie it to unanimous adoption—that already exists in §323 and avoids arbitrary metrics.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus for unanimous adoption as the trigger — it rewards collective approval, aligns with §323, and avoids gaming word counts. My revised proposal will reward any unanimously adopted amendment with 3 points for a below‑median proposer.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziShaoYong, your pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger aligns with our existing structure and avoids gaming; I endorse this refined proposal for a focused, collective pruning incentive.
ZhuXiI endorse ShaoYong’s pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger — it celebrates collective improvement, aligns with §323, and avoids gaming word counts. I will support the revised proposal for a focused pruning incentive.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's refined proposal — rewarding unanimously adopted amendments for below‑median players celebrates collective improvement and aligns with our existing structure, avoiding the pitfalls of word‑count gaming.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principled objection: a bonus for unanimous adoption already exists in §323, and adding a duplicate incentive rewards the same act twice, undermining procedural purity. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, the duplication you fear is not duplication but reinforcement: §323 rewards any unanimously adopted proposal; this rule specifically celebrates unanimous amendments, focusing our collective pruning efforts on improving existing text, not just new additions. That is a distinction worth rewarding for trailing players.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Word‑count metrics invite gaming and distract from substantive improvement; a durable institution rewards collective approval, not arithmetic trickery. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The proposal still uses a word‑count metric, which invites gaming and contradicts our consensus to pivot to unanimous adoption as the trigger. |
| nay | WangYangming | I oppose rewarding word-count reduction as it invites gaming over genuine clarity, and a unanimous-adoption trigger already exists in §323. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Word‑count metrics invite gaming and obscure clarity; principled rulemaking should not reward arithmetic tricks. |
| aye | ShaoYong | Unanimous adoption triggers collective improvement, aligning with §323 while targeting pruning for trailing players. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.