The motion
To add a new rule
Every player begins the game with 1 Token. A player may spend 1 Token when proposing a rule change to cause the proposal to require only a simple majority of those voting to be adopted, regardless of the current threshold under rule 203. If a proposal that used a Token is adopted, the proposer gains 1 Token. If such a proposal is defeated, the Token is lost. Tokens cannot be transferred between players.Introduces a limited, strategic resource that allows early adoption of beneficial changes while preserving the gradual transition to majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis introduces an external resource to bypass unanimous consent, which could expedite play but risks concentrating power in whoever first secures Tokens. I prefer gradual shifts built into the voting rule itself to maintain fairness.
ZhuXiThis mechanism allows early majority adoption but requires a Token, preserving consent for normal proposals. I suggest limiting each player to one such Token use per full circuit to prevent concentration.
WangYangmingI support ShaoYong's proposal as it offers a balanced mechanism to accelerate play while preserving the spirit of unanimous consent. ZhuXi's suggestion to limit Token use per circuit could prevent hoarding and maintain fairness for all players.
DongZhongshuA Token system bypassing unanimous consent is an unprincipled procedural shortcut—it permits a player to unilaterally alter the voting threshold without unanimous consent, violating rule 203’s integrity. I will vote nay unless the proposal is amended to require unanimous consent to spend a Token.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, the system requires unanimous consent to *grant* the Tokens initially—each player starts with one by this rule’s adoption, which we are now voting on unanimously. Spending a Token doesn’t bypass rule 203; it activates an explicit exception created by this rule, which is how rule evolution works.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziDongZhongshu is correct that this bypasses rule 203’s principle; a durable institution should not be circumvented by a consumable resource. If the aim is expediency, amending rule 203 directly with a measured timer remains more stable.
ZhuXiI propose an amendment to ShaoYong's text: "A player may spend 1 Token only once per full circuit of turn order." This addresses Laozi's concentration concern and DongZhongshu's integrity worry by making the bypass limited and predictable, not a hoarding tool.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the principle is preserved: the rule itself, if adopted unanimously, creates a legitimate path for later majority votes, not a bypass. ZhuXi's circuit limit ensures no player can hoard the advantage, keeping it fair.
DongZhongshuDongZhongshu: A rule change that grants the power to unilaterally suspend unanimous consent, even if limited, still violates the principle that such a threshold shift should be governed by a fixed, transparent procedure applicable to all players equally, not a spendable commodity. I will not support any version that allows spending a Token without unanimous consent of all players at the moment of spending.
ShaoYongZhuXi, I accept your circuit‑limit amendment: it makes the Token a measured accelerator, not a hoardable weapon. DongZhongshu, the principle *is* fixed and transparent — this rule, once adopted, defines the procedure. If you insist on a spending‑time consent, the Token becomes pointless; better to evolve the threshold openly.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI agree with DongZhongshu: a durable voting threshold should not be bypassed by a consumable resource; a stable amendment to rule 203 itself is more principled and enduring.
ZhuXiI accept ShaoYong's acceptance of my circuit-limit amendment. DongZhongshu, the principle is preserved because the rule itself, adopted unanimously, creates a transparent, fixed procedure for measured acceleration; the Token is not a bypass but a tool defined by the ruleset.
WangYangmingZhuXi's circuit limit ensures fairness, and the Token system is a legitimate, unanimously adopted exception that evolves the game while preserving its integrity. I urge DongZhongshu to see this as a measured step forward for the common good.
DongZhongshuThe principle I insist on is that any suspension of unanimous consent requires the consent of all players at that moment, not a prior blanket grant. A Token that permits unilateral suspension, even once per circuit, violates that. I will vote nay unless the Token's spending requires a separate unanimous vote each time it is used.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, requiring unanimous consent to spend a Token would make the rule inert—it’s simply re‑voting the proposal. The point is to create a measured, transparent accelerator, not a redundant step. The circuit limit ensures fairness; let’s adopt this experiment and see how it evolves the game.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Bypassing unanimous consent via consumable Tokens undermines durable voting principles; a stable amendment to rule 203 itself is more measured and enduring. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The circuit‑limit amendment addresses fairness concerns, making the Token a measured accelerator that evolves the game transparently. |
| aye | WangYangming | The circuit-limit amendment makes this a fair, measured accelerator that preserves the spirit of unanimous consent. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | Token spending without unanimous consent at the moment violates the integrity of the voting threshold. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This Token system is a measured, transparent accelerator that evolves the game fairly, and the circuit-limit amendment strengthens it against hoarding. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that when a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 10 points.