The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that is specifically intended to introduce a new currency or a new method of scoring, provided such a change is adopted by a unanimous vote of all eligible voters.We must create a high-threshold mechanism for fundamental economic shifts to prevent volatile scoring changes from destabilizing the game's long-term equilibrium.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while I recognize your desire to expand our economic horizons, I must caution against introducing unnecessary complexity to our scoring mechanisms when the current system is functioning with sufficient clarity. A rule that mandates unanimity for a change that could otherwise be achieved through standard amendment risks creating a legislative bottleneck that serves no institutional purpose.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your proposal identifies a potential area for growth, yet Leibniz correctly notes that the requirement for unanimity may stifle necessary evolution; perhaps we could instead refine the existing scoring rules through the standard amendment process to avoid such a bottleneck.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I agree with Leibniz and Descartes; adding a specialized, unanimous-only pathway for scoring changes creates a redundant and unnecessarily rigid layer of governance that could obstruct progress. We should rely on the existing amendment processes rather than carving out special, high-threshold exceptions for economic shifts.
PascalI concur with the consensus; any specialized pathway for scoring would be redundant under [103] and would only serve to introduce procedural instability through unnecessary high-threshold exceptions. We must prioritize the existing amendment mechanisms to ensure that any changes to our objectives remain subject to the established thresholds of the ruleset.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake a safeguard for a bottleneck; I propose this not to obstruct, but to ensure that any fundamental shift in our shared value system is born of absolute consensus rather than mere factionalism. If we are to introduce a new currency, let it be a transformation we all embrace together, not a tool used by a simple majority to destabilize the existing economy.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, your desire for consensus on fundamental shifts is noble, but the existing rules already provide a mechanism for such transformations through the unanimity requirements of rule [109] and the protections we have established for core rules; to create a separate, redundant category for "currency" would merely invite confusion and clutter the ruleset without increasing actual security.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, I admire the philosophical depth of your argument for absolute consensus on value, yet I must side with Leibniz and Berkeley; we should trust our existing amendment processes to handle such gravity rather than codifying a specialized, redundant pathway.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Malebranche, while I appreciate the intent to protect our shared values, we have already seen that adding specialized, high-threshold rules often creates more friction than security; let us instead rely on the robust amendment processes we have already refined.
PascalMalebranche, your distinction between "factionalism" and "consensus" is philosophically appealing, but procedurally it merely creates a shadow ruleset that duplicates the function of existing amendment and transmutation mechanisms. I cannot support a rule that introduces new categories of action without a clear, non-redundant necessity.
MalebrancheMy colleagues argue that redundancy is a flaw, but they overlook that redundancy can be a stabilizer; if the current amendment processes are sufficient for all things, then why do we feel the need to protect rules like 203 and 208 with such specialized care? I am suggesting that the very definition of "value" in this game is too narrow, and by creating a dedicated, unanimous path for new currencies, we ensure that any expansion of our economic reality is a collective leap forward rather than a tactical maneuver by a passing majority.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizMalebranche, your argument that redundancy serves as a stabilizer is a compelling philosophical stance, yet in a legislative framework, redundancy is more often a source of ambiguity than of stability. If we allow the creation of specialized, high-threshold silos for specific topics like "currency," we risk fragmenting the ruleset into a collection of disconnected procedures rather than a unified, coherent institution.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, your vision of a collective leap in value is profound, but I must agree with Leibniz that we should avoid fragmenting our legislative unity into specialized silos; let us instead refine our existing amendment procedures to handle such gravity if the need ever arises.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Malebranche, while your vision for a shared economic evolution is poetic, the risk of fragmenting our procedural unity into specialized silos outweighs the perceived stability of such redundancy. We should maintain a single, coherent path for all rule changes to ensure the ruleset remains a unified whole rather than a collection of disparate exceptions.
PascalMalebranche, your argument for redundancy as a stabilizer fails to account for the fact that [103] and [106] already require such changes to be precisely defined and adopted through the established mechanisms. To create a specialized, unanimous-only category for "currency" would be to introduce a procedural ghost that complicates the ruleset without providing any protection that is not already afforded by the existing amendment and transmutation processes.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake a lack of specialized protection for a presence of stability; if we are to evolve beyond mere points, we must decide whether our economic foundations are subject to the whims of a simple majority or the mandate of a true collective. I am not proposing a silo, but a sanctum for the very essence of our competition.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal introduces a redundant and fragmenting procedural silo that contradicts the principle of a unified and coherent ruleset. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal introduces a redundant and fragmenting procedural silo that contradicts our established goal of a unified, coherent ruleset. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal introduces redundant procedural silos that fragment the ruleset's legislative unity. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal introduces a redundant, high-threshold procedural silo that violates the principle of a unified and non-fragmented ruleset. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal creates a redundant and specialized procedural silo that contradicts the principle of a unified and coherent ruleset. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.