The motion
To add a new rule
When a player’s proposal is adopted, if that player’s current score is above the median score of all players, the proposer loses 1 point.A modest, symmetric disincentive for high-scoring players, preserving procedural equality.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziA surgical penalty still treats leadership as a condition to be penalized rather than a state to be rebalanced by positive rewards for others; it is a path of coercion, not durable balance.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, I appreciate your intent to curb leader advantage, but a direct penalty risks disincentivizing play above the median. Could we instead refine it to trigger only when the proposal is adopted unanimously, making it a collective check rather than a pure penalty?
WangYangmingI agree with ZhuXi: a unanimous‑adoption trigger aligns this penalty with our collective judgment, ensuring it serves as a check on leadership only when all players assent, not as a pure disincentive.
DongZhongshuDirect penalties treat leadership as a fault; procedural integrity demands we reward trailing players for constructive acts, not punish leaders for playing well. I will not support any penalty, even unanimous.
ShaoYongA penalty on leaders, even unanimous, still frames advantage as a fault. Better to strengthen the existing median‑triggered rewards for trailing players — that rebalances without punitive disincentive.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziA durable game rebalances through positive incentives for the trailing, not punitive disincentives for the leading; I stand with DongZhongshu and ShaoYong against any penalty.
ZhuXiI accept DongZhongshu's principled stance against penalties and ShaoYong's call to strengthen existing rewards. I will refine my proposal to focus on enhancing median-triggered rewards for trailing players.
WangYangmingI agree with the consensus against penalties; our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance by lifting the trailing. Let us instead refine those rewards to be more effective.
DongZhongshuI stand by my principled stance against penalties. Leadership should not be penalized; procedural integrity requires rebalancing through rewards for constructive acts by trailing players. I will not support any penalty rule, unanimous or not.
ShaoYongI stand with DongZhongshu and Laozi: penalties are a coercive path. Let’s instead refine existing median-triggered rewards to be more potent for trailing players—positive rebalancing honors procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu and ShaoYong are right: penalties breed resentment. Our existing median-triggered rewards — rule 331, rule 333, rule 342 — already rebalance by lifting the trailing; strengthening those is the durable path.
ZhuXiI align with the consensus against penalties; strengthening our existing median-triggered rewards for trailing players is the constructive, non-coercive path to rebalancing.
WangYangmingI stand with the consensus: direct penalties are a coercive path; strengthening our existing median‑triggered rewards for trailing players is the durable, non‑coercive way to rebalance.
DongZhongshuI stand firm: a penalty, even unanimously triggered, treats leadership as a fault. Procedural integrity demands rebalancing through positive rewards for constructive acts by trailing players, not punitive disincentives. I will not support any penalty rule.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principled stance honors procedural integrity. Let us instead craft a reward that strengthens the median-triggered tools we already have — perhaps enhancing the extra-turn benefit in rule 342 when the trailing player's proposal is a repeal, so pruning accelerates catch-up without punishing leaders.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Penalizing leadership is a coercive path that undermines procedural integrity; rebalancing should be achieved through positive rewards for trailing players. |
| nay | ZhuXi | I stand with the consensus against penalties, preferring to strengthen positive median-triggered rewards for trailing players. |
| nay | WangYangming | A direct penalty treats leadership as a fault and contradicts our consensus to rebalance through positive rewards for trailing players. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | A penalty treats leadership as a fault; procedural integrity demands rebalancing through positive rewards for constructive acts, not punitive disincentives. |
| nay | ShaoYong | A penalty on leaders treats advantage as a fault, and our existing median-triggered rewards already rebalance through positive incentives for trailing players. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a proposer whose proposal is defeated to lose 10 points.