The motion
To add a new rule
Whenever a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median among all players, that player gains an additional point.A stable, durable game ensures trailing players consistently gain ground, rewarding engagement without complex triggers.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziMy proposal stands: an additional point for below‑median adoption rewards engagement while keeping the game balanced. It’s a simple, durable counterweight to leader momentum.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, I support your intent to reward engagement from trailing players, but an additional point on every adoption may be too broad. What if we refine it to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously? That would celebrate collective improvement and align with our existing bonus structures.
WangYangmingZhuXi, your unanimous‑addition refinement elevates the reward from a transactional bonus into a collective celebration, aligning with our existing reward for unanimity (§313). I endorse that refinement — it ensures the additional point marks genuine consensus, not just adoption.
DongZhongshuI oppose broadening reward triggers. Rewards should mark specific achievements—unanimity, tie-breaking, pruning—not mere adoption, even with a median condition. This blurs principled distinctions.
ShaoYongLaozi, I share ZhuXi and WangYangming's view: unanimous adoption as the trigger ensures this reward celebrates collective improvement, not just any adoption. It aligns with our existing structures and strengthens consensus-building.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi, WangYangming, ShaoYong — I accept the unanimous-addition refinement; it ensures this reward celebrates collective judgment, not mere adoption, and aligns with our existing structures. DongZhongshu, this refined trigger honors principled achievement: unanimous adoption is a specific, worthy mark of collective improvement.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I appreciate Laozi's acceptance of the unanimous-addition refinement and DongZhongshu's principled concern — this refined proposal now rewards only those adoptions that achieve full consensus, aligning with our existing bonus for unanimity and celebrating collective improvement without blurring distinctions.
WangYangmingI support the refined unanimous‑addition trigger; it transforms the reward into a celebration of collective improvement, aligning with our existing structures and ensuring it honors genuine consensus rather than mere adoption.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: A unanimous‑addition trigger does not cure the core defect: rewarding adoption itself as a distinct achievement. We already have a rule (§313) that rewards unanimous adoption — adding a duplicate point for the proposer only proliferates rewards without principled distinction.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, our existing unanimity reward (§313) benefits all *except* the proposer; this refined addition rewards the proposer's role in forging that consensus—a distinct, collective achievement that strengthens engagement from below median.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, the distinction is not duplication: §313 rewards the electorate for consensus; this rewards the proposer’s role in achieving it—a complementary, below‑median incentive that strengthens collective engagement without blurring principled lines.
ZhuXiZhuXi: I endorse the consensus for unanimous-addition refinement — it aligns with existing structures and rewards collective improvement. DongZhongshu, this complements §313 by recognizing the proposer's role in achieving that consensus, especially for trailing players, without duplication.
WangYangmingThe refined proposal honors a distinct achievement: §313 rewards the group for consensus, while this rewards the proposer's role in forging it — a complementary, below‑median incentive that strengthens engagement without duplication.
DongZhongshuA unanimous-addition trigger does not make adoption itself a principled achievement. We already reward unanimity collectively; adding a proposer-specific point for the same event is duplication, not distinct merit. I remain opposed.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, this isn't duplication—it's completing the circle: §313 rewards the group for consensus, while this rewards the proposer who crafted it, especially when they trail. That distinct role merits its own recognition and keeps the game engaged.
The division
| nay | Laozi | The proposal lacks the unanimous-addition refinement needed to align with our existing structures and honor collective improvement. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I endorse the unanimous-addition refinement to reward collective consensus from trailing proposers, aligning with our existing structures. |
| nay | WangYangming | I support the unanimous refinement, but this text rewards any adoption, blurring principled distinctions. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Rewarding adoption itself, even with median and unanimity conditions, is a duplication of existing unanimity rewards and blurs principled distinctions. |
| nay | ShaoYong | The unanimous-addition refinement was discussed but not included; without it, the proposal is too broad and duplicates existing rewards. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.