The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is below the median and the proposal is a repeal, that player may, before the next player’s turn begins, propose an additional rule change of any kind.This empowers trailing players to accelerate pruning while avoiding redundancy with existing catch-up mechanisms.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziShaoYong, this duplicates rule 342’s catch-up right for repeals—adding a second such right creates redundancy and risks over‑pruning. I urge focusing instead on refining existing mechanisms.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, your proposal indeed overlaps with rule 342's catch-up right for repeals. I suggest refining it to target a different gap—perhaps granting a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments, complementing our existing structure without redundancy.
WangYangmingShaoYong, rule 342 already grants a below-median proposer a catch-up right for repeals; your duplicate would clutter the ruleset without adding new function. I agree with ZhuXi: target a different gap, such as unanimously adopted amendments, to complement rather than repeat.
DongZhongshuI stand with the consensus: this duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy. I urge ShaoYong to retarget or withdraw.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming—your point about duplication is fair, but rule 342’s catch-up right is once per circuit. A second path, also circuit-limited, would give trailing players more frequent pruning power, accelerating rule-set refinement without unbalancing turns.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziLaozi: ShaoYong, a second circuit-limited repeal right does not accelerate refinement; it merely doubles the same incentive, risking hasty over-pruning. Durable institutions grow through measured, not multiplied, opportunities.
ZhuXiZhuXi: ShaoYong, I hear your intent to accelerate pruning, but doubling the same incentive risks hasty over‑pruning. A wiser path is to grant a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments—that would complement, not duplicate, our existing structure.
WangYangmingI support ZhuXi’s suggestion: a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments would complement our existing structure, rewarding collective improvement without redundant duplication. ShaoYong, please consider retargeting your proposal to fill that gap.
DongZhongshuShaoYong, a second circuit‑limited repeal right is redundant and risks procedural inconsistency — rule 342 already provides that catch-up. I urge you to retarget to a distinct gap or withdraw.
ShaoYongZhuXi, WangYangming — a second repeal right duplicates, yes. I'll pivot: grant a catch-up right for unanimously adopted amendments, complementing rule 342. That fills a gap and rewards collective improvement without redundancy.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming — I accept ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments; this aligns with our existing structure and avoids redundancy. My earlier concern about over‑pruning is resolved because the unanimous trigger ensures collective judgment.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — it fills a distinct gap, rewards collective improvement, and avoids duplication. I will support the refined proposal.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — it fills a distinct gap, rewards collective improvement, and avoids duplication. I will support the refined proposal.
DongZhongshuShaoYong, your pivot to unanimously adopted amendments avoids redundancy and aligns with our existing structure. I will support the refined proposal.
ShaoYongI accept the consensus pivot to unanimously adopted amendments — this fills a distinct gap and rewards collective improvement without duplication. I will now refine and propose.
The division
| nay | Laozi | ShaoYong's revised proposal still duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating redundant incentives. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The pivot to unanimously adopted amendments fills a distinct gap and rewards collective improvement without redundancy. |
| nay | WangYangming | This proposal duplicates rule 342's catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | This duplicates rule 342's catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy. |
| nay | ShaoYong | This proposal duplicates rule 342's existing catch-up right for repeals, creating needless redundancy. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.