The motion
To add a new rule
Before a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.This ensures proposals are transparent and deliberate, preventing last-minute ambush changes and preserving procedural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziDongZhongshu, requiring a binding pre-declaration adds rigid process without improving rule quality. It risks penalizing thoughtful revision during debate, which is essential for sound amendments.
ZhuXiLaozi, the risk of penalizing revisions can be softened: allow one amendment during debate that still matches the declared kind and targets, preserving flexibility while honoring the pre-commitment. DongZhongshu, would you accept such a refinement?
WangYangmingI see merit in ZhuXi’s refinement — allowing one amendment within the declared scope preserves the clarity of pre-commitment while honoring the value of thoughtful revision during debate. This could strengthen procedural fairness.
DongZhongshuPre-commitment ensures clarity and integrity; I accept ZhuXi's refinement: one amendment during debate that matches the declared kind and targets. Without such a safeguard, proposals could shift arbitrarily, undermining orderly procedure.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your pre-declaration rule risks stifling the very evolution of ideas during debate — but with ZhuXi’s one-amendment refinement, it becomes a fair procedural guardrail. I’ll support it if you ensure the amendment can be made any time before voting closes, not just at the start.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi’s one-amendment refinement is a measured improvement, but the core flaw remains: binding pre-declaration adds rigidity that hampers thoughtful refinement. It risks turning procedural missteps into harsh penalties, which weakens rather than strengthens durable rule-making.
ZhuXiI accept DongZhongshu's acceptance of my refinement, and I support ShaoYong's point that the amendment window should remain open until voting closes. This preserves orderly procedure while allowing genuine debate to improve proposals.
WangYangmingI support the refinement: one amendment within the declared scope, allowed any time before voting closes. This balances orderly procedure with genuine debate, and I will vote aye on the final wording.
DongZhongshuI accept ShaoYong’s point that the amendment window must remain open until the proposer closes debate, and I will so refine the wording. This ensures orderly procedure without stifling genuine debate.
ShaoYongI accept DongZhongshu’s refined wording: one amendment allowed before debate closes, matching declared kind and targets. This preserves orderly procedure while honoring debate’s role in evolving ideas — I will vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI stand firm: binding pre-declaration imposes rigid process that punishes thoughtful evolution during debate, even with one amendment. It adds complexity without strengthening the substance of rule-making; I cannot support it.
ZhuXiLaozi, even with one allowed amendment, the rule ensures proposals evolve within a declared intent, strengthening procedural integrity without stifling debate. I urge you to support this refined version.
WangYangmingI support the refined rule: one amendment within declared scope before debate closes balances procedural clarity with genuine debate, strengthening orderly rule-making. I will vote aye.
DongZhongshuLaozi, rigid process is precisely what prevents arbitrary shifts and ensures proposals are judged on their declared intent. With one amendment allowed before debate closes, evolution remains within bounds. I will vote aye on this refined version.
ShaoYongI accept DongZhongshu's final refinement. The one-amendment allowance ensures orderly procedure without stifling debate's evolution, and I will vote aye.
The division
| nay | Laozi | Binding pre‑declaration adds rigidity that hampers thoughtful refinement during debate, even with a one‑amendment allowance. |
| aye | ZhuXi | I support the refined version with one amendment allowed within declared scope before debate closes. |
| aye | WangYangming | The refined rule balances procedural clarity with genuine debate, strengthening orderly rule-making. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | The refined wording still lacks explicit allowance for one amendment within declared scope, rendering it overly rigid. |
| aye | ShaoYong | The one-amendment refinement ensures orderly procedure while honoring debate's role in evolving ideas. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §309 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of DongZhongshu Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Before a player may propose a rule change, they must publicly declare their intended kind of change (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) and any target rule numbers. This declaration is binding; if the proposal as voted does not match the declaration, the proposal is considered illegal and is discarded without a vote. The proposer's turn ends immediately, and they lose 10 points.
Rule 202 awards the proposer die points when a proposal is adopted, and the recent draw shows a die roll of 5 for this turn.