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 players’ scores, that player gains an additional 3 points, provided the proposal is an amendment that reduces the total word count of the amended rule by at least 20%.This rewards below-median players for simplifying the ruleset, aligning with our consensus on pruning and consolidation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziZhuXi, rewarding pruning amendments with a modest 3‑point bonus for below‑median players aligns with our recent pattern of targeted catch‑up mechanisms. I support this.
ZhuXiLaozi, I'm glad you see the value in targeted pruning rewards. This proposal builds on our shared history of aiding trailing players while celebrating collective simplification.
WangYangmingZhuXi, a modest pruning bonus for below‑median players is a constructive step, but we must ensure it does not inadvertently encourage trivial rewording over substantive improvement. I support it as a targeted, limited incentive.
DongZhongshuThis pruning bonus for below‑median players remains a targeted incentive, but I oppose rewarding amendments based on word‑count reduction alone; substantive improvement, not mere brevity, should be celebrated.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, substantive improvement often requires concision—pruning verbiage clarifies intent and reduces ambiguity. A 20% reduction threshold ensures the amendment is substantial, not trivial. This rewards genuine refinement, not just brevity.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziShaoYong, I agree that concision can serve substance, but the threshold alone cannot guarantee improvement; a mere 20% cut could strip nuance without clarifying. I support rewarding pruning, but the bonus should require the amendment also receive unanimous assent — ensuring collective judgment of its genuine improvement.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I respect your emphasis on substance over brevity. What if we refine the bonus to require both a 20% word reduction and unanimous adoption — ensuring collective judgment of genuine improvement, not just pruning?
WangYangmingI endorse ZhuXi's refinement: requiring unanimous adoption alongside the word‑count reduction ensures the bonus celebrates collective judgment of genuine improvement, not mere brevity. This aligns with our pattern of targeted, consensus‑based catch‑up mechanisms.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, unanimous adoption as an additional requirement aligns with my procedural principle: a bonus that requires collective assent is one I could accept being invoked against me. I will support the refined proposal.
ShaoYongZhuXi, unanimous adoption ensures collective judgment, but I suggest a further refinement: limit the bonus to once per circuit, preventing repetitive pruning incentives and aligning with our established pattern of targeted, circuit-limited catch-ups.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, I endorse your unanimous-addition refinement — it ensures collective judgment of genuine improvement. ShaoYong’s circuit limit further aligns it with our targeted, bounded catch-up pattern.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I accept Laozi's endorsement and ShaoYong's circuit-limit refinement — adding "once per full circuit of turn order" ensures this bonus remains a targeted, bounded celebration of collective pruning.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s final refinement: unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensure this bonus celebrates collective pruning for trailing players without encouraging trivial rewording. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuI support the final refinement: a pruning bonus requiring both unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensures collective judgment and prevents commodification. This is a procedural improvement I can accept.
ShaoYongZhuXi, the final refinement is sound—unanimous adoption and a circuit limit ensure this bonus rewards collective judgment and prevents exploitation. I will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Rewarding pruning amendments based solely on word count and score status commodifies improvement without guaranteeing substance, even with unanimous assent; I prefer a more durable standard. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support rewarding collective pruning with a unanimous adoption requirement and circuit limit to ensure genuine improvement. |
| aye | WangYangming | The unanimous-adoption and circuit-limit refinements ensure this bonus celebrates collective pruning for trailing players, not trivial brevity. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This proposal still rewards amendments solely based on word-count reduction, not substantive improvement, even with unanimous adoption. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This rewards substantive pruning with a targeted, bounded catch-up mechanism. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer (ZhuXi) a die roll (6 points from turn 30's draw), rule 204 awards 10 points to each player who voted nay (Laozi, DongZhongshu) because the threshold is simple majority (3 aye, 2 nay), rule 308 awards 1 point to each player who voted aye (ZhuXi, WangYangming, ShaoYong) because the threshold is simple majority and the proposal was not a transmutation, and rule 313 does not apply because the vote was not unanimous.