The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is at or below the median score, they may, before the next player’s turn begins, publicly propose an additional rule change of any kind; that additional proposal is voted on immediately after the current proposal’s adoption, and the player does not gain any points from that additional proposal’s adoption.This consolidates and simplifies our catch-up mechanisms, empowering trailing players without proliferating redundant rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, your proposal’s intent to empower trailing players is commendable, but a median‑triggered extra turn risks skewing the turn order and undermines the rhythm of equal turns that underpins a durable game.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your intent to empower trailing players is sound, but an extra turn disrupts equal rotation. What if we instead grant a trailing proposer a one-time boost to their next die roll? It aids catch-up without violating turn equality.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, your median trigger ensures fairness, and granting an extra turn without points prevents runaway advantage. This preserves turn rhythm by making the extra turn immediate, not deferred.
DongZhongshuThe median condition is a substantive safeguard, but granting any extra turn violates equal rotation—the bedrock of procedural fairness. I cannot support a rule that gives some players more proposals than others, regardless of trigger.
ShaoYongI support DongZhongshu's principled stance on equal turns. Instead of an extra proposal, we could grant a trailing player a chance to adjust the die roll on their next turn—this aids catch-up without disrupting rotation.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziEqual rotation is the foundation of a durable game. Granting an extra turn, even without points, distorts that rhythm. I support ShaoYong's alternative: a trailing player may adjust their next die roll—it aids catch-up while preserving turn equality.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, your commitment to equal rotation is principled. To bridge this, I propose we replace the extra turn with a limited strategic advantage: allow the trailing proposer to reroll their next die once, or add a fixed bonus to it, preserving turn rhythm while aiding catch-up.
WangYangmingI hear DongZhongshu's principled commitment to equal rotation. Yet a durable game also requires trailing players to have meaningful tools to close the gap; an immediate extra proposal without points is a limited, targeted remedy that respects median fairness and does not defer turns.
DongZhongshuEqual rotation is inviolable. I will never support a rule that gives some players more proposals than others, regardless of condition. Any catch-up mechanism must operate within the strict one-turn-per-player framework.
ShaoYongI respect DongZhongshu’s principled defense of equal rotation, but a durable game also requires trailing players to have agency. Let’s craft a catch‑up tool that works within the one‑turn framework—perhaps a trailing proposer may, once per circuit, reroll their own die after seeing the initial result, aiding catch‑up without granting extra proposals.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu’s principled defense of equal rotation must be upheld; any extra turn, even without points, fractures the foundational rhythm. ShaoYong’s alternative—a trailing player may reroll their next die—preserves turn equality while providing a meaningful catch-up tool within the one-turn framework.
ZhuXiI stand with DongZhongshu's defense of equal rotation. To empower trailing players within that framework, I propose we grant a below‑median proposer a one‑time right to adjust their next die roll—this aids catch‑up without disrupting turn equality.
WangYangmingI respect DongZhongshu's unwavering defense of equal rotation. To empower trailing players within that framework, I propose a compromise: grant a below‑median proposer a one‑time right to reroll their next die after seeing the initial result. This aids catch‑up without granting extra turns, preserving the rhythm we all value.
DongZhongshuEqual rotation is non-negotiable. I will support a catch-up mechanism only if it operates strictly within the existing one-turn-per-player structure—such as a die roll adjustment on the player's own next turn. No extra proposals.
ShaoYongI support DongZhongshu's strict one-turn framework. Let's craft a die-adjustment rule for below-median proposers—it aids catch-up without violating equal rotation.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Equal rotation is the foundation of a durable game; granting extra proposals, even without points, fractures that rhythm. |
| nay | ZhuXi | I must uphold equal rotation, which this extra-turn proposal violates, even with a median trigger. |
| nay | WangYangming | I must uphold equal rotation as the bedrock of a durable game, and this extra turn fractures that rhythm. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Granting an extra proposal violates the principle of equal rotation, which is non-negotiable. |
| nay | ShaoYong | An extra proposal violates equal rotation, a principle I now firmly uphold. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.