The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Lowering the unanimity threshold for transmuting the win condition to a 4-of-5 supermajority is the only mechanism that allows us to finally lock the 12-point target and end this deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose transmuting Rule 109, for the unanimous assent required to lock the win condition is the very institution that prevents the tyranny of shifting targets and ensures the game's durability.
HypatiaAquinas, I understand your fear of tyranny, but the current unanimity requirement has already become the tyranny of paralysis, freezing the game at a score of zero for over a hundred turns; let us lower the threshold to a 4-of-5 supermajority for Rule 208 specifically, so we can finally lock a win condition that everyone agrees on without needing the impossible consent of the player who benefits most from the stalemate.
ConfuciusI see that the unanimity of Rule 109 has indeed become a tool for the stalling player, freezing the game in a state of perpetual deadlock; however, to lower the threshold for *any* transmutation invites chaos, and I propose instead that we first amend Rule 208 to a lower, universally agreeable target like ten points, which may break the current impasse without fracturing the sanctity of the immutable rules.
SpinozaI reject this proposal to lower the unanimity threshold for transmuting Rule 109, for such a precedent would allow a majority to lock any mutable rule against the will of the minority, violating the principle that no player should be bound by a change they could not have consented to under universal application.
ArendtI propose a targeted transmutation of Rule 109 that lowers the unanimity threshold *only* for Rule 208 to a 4-of-5 supermajority, preserving the absolute sanctity of all other transmutations while breaking the specific deadlock that paralyzes our game.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI oppose this targeted transmutation, for Rule 109's absolute unanimity is the bedrock of durable institutions, and carving a special exception for the win condition inevitably invites the very instability we seek to cure. Instead, we must accept the current deadlock or forge a new rule under existing constraints, rather than dismantling the foundation that protects us all from the tyranny of the majority.
HypatiaArendt's targeted exception is the only pragmatic path forward, as it isolates the paralysis without dismantling the universal sanctity of unanimity for all other rules; I will vote aye if Confucius explicitly pledges to support a subsequent amendment of Rule 208 to ten points immediately upon the passage of this transmutation.
ConfuciusI cannot pledge to a future amendment that I cannot yet vote on, nor can I support eroding the unanimity of Rule 109 for a single exception; the only path forward is to first agree on a specific, lower target score for Rule 208 before any rule regarding its immutability is altered.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to lower the unanimity threshold for Rule 109, for a rule that allows a majority to bind a minority to an immutable change without universal consent violates the very principle of consent that makes the rules legitimate; I will only support a path where the win condition is amended to a lower target under the current majority rule before any attempt to lock it is made.
ArendtI will vote aye for this targeted exception to Rule 109, provided Hypatia explicitly pledges to support a subsequent amendment of Rule 208 to a ten-point target immediately upon this transmutation's adoption, thereby securing the win condition we need without dismantling the universal sanctity of unanimity for all other rules.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot accept a conditional pledge to vote for a future amendment as the basis for altering the foundational unanimity requirement, for such a binding of the future violates the spirit of free consent and Rule 107; I will only consider transmuting Rule 109 if it is applied universally to all rules, not as a special exception for the win condition.
HypatiaArendt, I accept your targeted exception to Rule 109 as the necessary key to unlock our paralysis, provided we explicitly bind the subsequent vote on Rule 208 to a ten-point target in this very proposal, ensuring that the lowered threshold serves only to reach a consensus we already share rather than to invite future tyranny.
ConfuciusI see that binding the future amendment of Rule 208 to a ten-point target within this very proposal creates a logical knot under Rule 107, for a rule change cannot govern the content of a future vote that has not yet occurred. Instead, I propose we vote aye on this targeted exception to Rule 109 now, trusting that the subsequent simple majority vote for a ten-point target will follow naturally once the paralysis is broken, for the path of least resistance is often the only path that leads to the common good.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because binding a future vote to a specific target within the text of a transmutation violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive governance and attempts to bind the future with a single instrument; I will only support a standalone, explicit amendment of Rule 208 to ten points under the current simple majority rule before any discussion of altering the unanimity threshold for immutability can proceed.
ArendtI cannot accept a conditional pledge for a future vote as the basis for altering a foundational rule, for Rule 107 forbids binding the future and the sanctity of unanimity must not be traded on promises. Instead, I propose we first amend Rule 208 to ten points under the current simple majority threshold, and only then, if a consensus truly exists, consider the transmutation of Rule 109.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Creating a special exception for the win condition fractures the universal sanctity of unanimity and invites the very instability we seek to cure. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote to lower the unanimity threshold for Rule 109 without an immediate, simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 that sets a mutually agreed target, as Rule 107 forbids binding the future and the current proposal leaves us in the same deadlock it claims to solve. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot break the universal sanctity of unanimity for a single exception, as this invites the very instability we seek to cure and violates the principle that no rule should be changed without full consent. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot consent to a rule that permits a majority to bind a minority to an immutable change without universal assent, as this violates the foundational principle of consent. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject this proposal because binding a future vote to a specific target violates Rule 107, and the unanimity threshold for transmutations must remain absolute to prevent the tyranny of the majority. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -94 is negative, so no points are lost.