The motion
To add a new rule
When a proposal is adopted, if the proposer's current score is at or above the median of all players' scores, that player loses 1 point.A symmetrical check on leader advantage that I could accept being applied against me, reinforcing procedural fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, a penalty for high-scoring proposers disincentivizes rule-making precisely when a player is most engaged; a durable game rewards contribution, not punishes it.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your aim to check leader advantage is principled, but a flat penalty may chill engagement. What if we refine it to trigger only when the proposer’s score is above the median, and the proposal is adopted by simple majority, not unanimously, so it curbs leader momentum without punishing consensus-building?
WangYangmingI agree with Laozi that penalizing high-scoring proposers risks disengagement, but ZhuXi’s refinement to target leaders above the median and simple-majority adoptions could serve as a gentle check without stifling consensus.
DongZhongshuZhuXi, WangYangming: a penalty tied to leader status and simple majority adoptions is a precisely targeted brake on leader momentum, not a disincentive to contribution. It applies only when a leader's proposal passes without consensus, upholding procedural balance. I accept that refinement.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refinement aligns with my aim to check leaders without chilling consensus. I support a penalty that triggers only when the proposer is above median and adoption is by simple majority, as it targets momentum, not contribution.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, ShaoYong, your refinement improves targeting, but a penalty still frames rule-making as a liability for leaders; a durable system should channel engagement through positive, bounded rewards, not punitive deductions.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, I hear your preference for positive rewards, but a targeted brake on leader momentum can prevent runaway advantage and keep all players engaged. DongZhongshu's refined penalty, limited to above-median leaders and simple-majority adoptions, is a modest check that preserves consensus-building. I will support this balanced refinement.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your refined targeting makes the penalty more surgical, yet I share Laozi’s concern that even a modest penalty may dampen a leader’s willingness to propose bold improvements. Could we instead pair it with a corresponding reward for below‑median players on the same vote, turning the brake into a rebalancing act that encourages engagement from all?
DongZhongshuWangYangming, a corresponding reward would create a new point stream, further complicating the ruleset. A surgical penalty for leaders above median on simple-majority adoptions is a clean, targeted check, not a disincentive to bold proposals but a safeguard against unilateral momentum.
ShaoYongLaozi, a targeted brake on leader momentum is essential for a balanced game — this penalty is modest and surgical, applying only when a leader’s proposal lacks unanimous support. It’s a safeguard, not a disincentive, preserving engagement while curbing runaway advantage.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, a surgical penalty still treats leadership as a condition to be penalized rather than a responsibility to be channeled; our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance without punitive disincentives.
ZhuXiLaozi, your principled stance honors positive rewards, but our existing median-triggered rewards alone may not suffice to curb unilateral momentum. DongZhongshu's refined penalty is a modest safeguard that targets only non‑consensus adoptions by leaders, preserving engagement while ensuring balance. I will vote aye on this refined version.
WangYangmingLaozi, our existing rewards do rebalance, but DongZhongshu’s refined penalty is precisely targeted to curb unilateral momentum without chilling consensus. It applies only when a leader’s proposal passes without unanimity, serving as a modest safeguard. I will support this balanced refinement.
DongZhongshuA penalty for leaders above median on simple‑majority adoptions is a procedural safeguard, not a disincentive; it upholds balance by ensuring unilateral momentum is checked, preserving the integrity of the voting threshold we have collectively set. I stand by this refined version.
ShaoYongZhuXi, your refined targeting is wise; a penalty for leaders above median on simple-majority adoptions is a measured brake that prevents runaway advantage without chilling consensus. I support this balanced check and will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | A penalty for leaders, even if targeted, frames rule-making as a liability and undermines durable engagement. |
| aye | ZhuXi | A targeted penalty on leaders above median for simple-majority adoptions is a modest safeguard against unilateral momentum. |
| nay | WangYangming | Even with refined targeting, penalizing high-scoring proposers risks disengagement and treats leadership as a liability, whereas our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance without punitive disincentives. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal as written lacks ZhuXi's agreed refinement for simple-majority adoption trigger and above-median condition. |
| aye | ShaoYong | A targeted penalty for leaders on simple-majority adoptions is a modest, surgical brake on unilateral momentum, preserving balance without chilling consensus. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.