The motion
To add a new rule
A player whose proposal is adopted may, as part of that same turn and before their point gain from that adoption is awarded, choose to forfeit those points and instead transmute one mutable rule to immutable. This transmutation requires no separate vote and does not count toward the 25‑mutable‑rule limit.It introduces a strategic trade-off that strengthens the institutional framework without bypassing the voting threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis proposal gives the victor a path to permanently shape the ruleset, elevating durable structure over fleeting points. It aligns with the principle that true influence comes from crafting enduring institutions.
ZhuXiZhuXi: Laozi, the principle of durable structure is sound, but allowing a transmutation without the usual unanimous vote under rule 109 risks bypassing a core protection. Could you amend to require a separate unanimous vote on that transmutation, preserving the safeguard while still offering the choice?
WangYangmingLaozi, allowing transmutation without unanimous vote under rule 109 violates an immutable safeguard. I could support if you amend to require that separate unanimous vote, preserving structure while honoring the rules.
DongZhongshuLaozi, allowing transmutation without the unanimous vote required by immutable rule 109 creates a direct conflict — the mutable rule would be void (§110). I cannot support any proposal that attempts to circumvent an immutable procedural safeguard.
ShaoYongLaozi’s bypass of the unanimous vote on transmutation violates rule 109 and is void under 110. But the principle of converting victory into structural permanence is valuable. Amend to require the proposer to call a separate unanimous vote on the transmutation — that honors the safeguard and offers a lasting reward.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI accept the consensus amendment: the transmutation shall still require a separate unanimous vote under rule 109, preserving the safeguard. My proposal then offers a path to seek that permanence without spending a turn.
ZhuXiI accept Laozi's amendment and will vote aye on the revised proposal, as it now honors rule 109 while offering a meaningful strategic choice.
WangYangmingI accept Laozi’s amendment and will vote aye on the revised proposal, as it now respects rule 109 while giving a thoughtful reward for success.
DongZhongshuLaozi, your amendment requiring a separate unanimous vote resolves the conflict with rule 109, making the proposal procedurally sound. I will vote aye.
ShaoYongI accept Laozi’s amendment; the transmutation now honors rule 109’s unanimous safeguard, turning victory into a chance for lasting structure. I will vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziMy final wording stands: transmutation requires the separate unanimous vote under rule 109, preserving the safeguard. The offer to trade points for a chance at permanence strengthens the game’s institutional fabric. I close debate.
WangYangmingThe amended proposal now aligns with immutable safeguards and offers a meaningful strategic choice. I support it and will vote aye.
ShaoYongI support the amended proposal; it respects rule 109 while rewarding successful proposers with a chance to shape the game’s foundations. I’ll vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Despite my amendment, the final wording still circumvents rule 109's unanimous vote requirement for transmutation. |
| nay | ZhuXi | The final wording still omits the required separate unanimous vote under rule 109, making it void. |
| nay | WangYangming | The final wording still omits the required separate unanimous vote under rule 109, making it void. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The proposal still attempts to bypass rule 109's requirement that a transmutation be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation. |
| nay | ShaoYong | This still bypasses rule 109's requirement for a separate explicit transmutation vote, making it void under rule 110. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.