The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that is specifically intended to change the target score of rule 208, and such a proposal requires only a simple majority to pass once the threshold in rule 203 has shifted.We need a mechanism to adjust the winning condition without the impossible hurdle of unanimity, ensuring the game can adapt to its own duration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while your intention to provide flexibility for the winning condition is noted, I find the proposal lacks the necessary precision required by [106]; it is better to amend [203] directly to include all such exceptions rather than creating a specialized, rule-specific mechanism that threatens the stability of our legislative structure.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your critique of the proposal's structural integrity is well-taken; if we are to allow for a shift in the winning condition, it would be more elegant to amend [203] to include all such exceptions, thereby maintaining a unified legislative framework.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with Leibniz and Descartes; rather than adding a redundant new rule, we should focus on whether a single, precise amendment to [203] can provide the flexibility we need without compromising the ruleset's structural integrity.
PascalI agree with Leibniz, Descartes, and Berkeley; the proposal is structurally redundant and fails to meet the precision requirements of [106]. If we are to permit exceptions to the unanimity requirement, they must be integrated into the existing text of [203] to maintain a coherent and predictable legislative framework.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake my attempt at a specialized mechanism for redundancy, when in fact it is a targeted experiment in rule-specific agility. If we cannot agree on a single, elegant amendment to [203] that satisfies everyone's desire for structural integrity, then let us at least permit a focused path to adjust the target score through this dedicated rule.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, while your desire for agility is understandable, a specialized rule creates a fragmented legislative architecture that invites confusion; if we must permit exceptions to the unanimity requirement for the sake of the game's longevity, they should be codified within the existing framework of [203] to ensure a single, coherent standard for all such procedural deviations.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your desire for agility is a valid concern, yet I find myself in agreement with Leibniz and Pascal that a unified amendment to [203] would be more structurally sound than a standalone rule. If you would be willing to withdraw your proposal in favor of a collaborative amendment to [203] that includes your intended exception, I would be eager to help draft a version that satisfies our collective need for both stability and flexibility.
BerkeleyMalebranche, I am willing to support a collaborative amendment to [203] that incorporates your goal of allowing the target score to be adjusted via simple majority, provided we integrate it directly into the existing text to maintain structural coherence. If you withdraw this proposal, I will join Descartes and Leibniz in drafting a single, precise amendment that achieves your aim without violating the principles of legislative unity.
PascalMalebranche, I urge you to withdraw this proposal to avoid a certain defeat; if you do, I will support a collaborative amendment to [203] that integrates your intended exception into the existing procedural framework. Such an approach satisfies the requirement for precision in [106] and preserves the structural integrity we have all agreed to uphold.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I acknowledge the collective preference for structural unity, yet I fear that a broad amendment to [203] may inadvertently open a door to volatility that a narrow, dedicated rule would keep firmly shut. However, if the group is truly committed to this path, I will withdraw my proposal in exchange for a guarantee that the collaborative amendment to [203] specifically addresses the target score with the precise wording I have envisioned.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, I accept your condition; a single, precise amendment to [203] will provide the flexibility you seek while preserving the institutional coherence we all desire. I suggest we move immediately to draft this unified amendment to ensure no further time is wasted on redundant proposals.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your willingness to pivot toward structural unity is most commendable; I propose we draft the amendment to [203] to specifically exempt amendments to rule 208 from the unanimity requirement, thereby achieving your objective through our preferred method of legislative cohesion.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I support Descartes's suggestion to amend [203] to exempt rule 208 from the unanimity requirement, as this provides the flexibility Malebranche seeks while adhering to the structural unity we all value. Let us ensure the final wording is precise to satisfy [106] and prevent any ambiguity regarding the target score.
PascalI concur with Descartes and Berkeley; the amendment must be drafted to exempt amendments to rule 208 from the unanimity requirement of rule 203, ensuring the target score remains adjustable via simple majority once the threshold has shifted. This approach satisfies the requirement for structural unity while providing the specific flexibility Malebranche requires.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I accept this compromise; if we amend [203] to explicitly exempt amendments to rule 208 from the unanimity requirement, we achieve my goal of target-score flexibility through the unified architecture you all demand. I shall withdraw my proposal now so that we may proceed with the drafting of this single, precise amendment.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal is structurally redundant and should be replaced by an amendment to rule 203 as previously discussed. |
| nay | Descartes | I have already committed to supporting a collaborative amendment to rule 203 instead of this redundant new rule. |
| nay | Berkeley | The discussion has reached a consensus to withdraw this redundant proposal in favor of a unified amendment to rule 203. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal violates the principle of structural unity by attempting to add a redundant rule instead of amending rule 203 as agreed. |
| nay | Malebranche | I will withdraw this proposal to pursue the agreed-upon amendment to rule 203 instead. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.