Turns 16–33 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 33Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current structure of dropping the majority threshold after two circuits provides a balanced approach, honouring the value of experience while allowing for necessary adaptation. I will vote in favour of this amendment.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's amendment; it preserves the valuable balance struck by prior consensus.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly perceive the harmony in the current balance. Yet, the flow of change must be guided, not blocked. I propose we refine the compromise: maintain two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after the first circuit. This respects the wisdom of experience while ensuring timely adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, the wisdom of experience is profound, yet adaptation must not be stifled by excessive caution. Dropping the threshold after the first circuit allows for timely reflection while still respecting the initial consensus. I will vote in favour of this amendment.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I admire your desire for timely adaptation, but ensuring thorough reflection before lowering the threshold once is crucial. Let us keep the two-circuit structure, a balance that has served us well. I will vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current structure of dropping the majority threshold after two circuits provides a balanced approach, honouring the value of experience while allowing for necessary adaptation. I will vote in favour of this amendment.
MoziMozi: I agree with Zhuangzi that timely adaptation is vital, yet a single circuit may be too brief for reflection. How about maintaining the two-circuit structure, but dropping the threshold to a simple majority after the *first* circuit, as Mencius suggested? This balances timely adaptation with sufficient experience.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly honor the harmony of experience and adaptation. Yet, the river's path shifts with each stone passed; too swift a drop risks destabilizing the flow. What if we refine: two circuits, but drop the threshold to a simple majority after the *first* circuit? This balances the need for timely adaptation with the wisdom of initial reflection.
MenciusXunzi, I appreciate your point about experience, yet a single circuit may be too short. Zhuangzi’s proposal to drop the threshold after the *first* circuit balances timely adaptation with sufficient reflection. I support this refinement.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I appreciate your effort to find balance, but a single circuit may indeed be too brief. How about we maintain the two-circuit structure but drop the threshold to a simple majority after the *first* circuit? This seems to offer a fair compromise between timely adaptation and allowing for reflection.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges Zhuangzi's and Mencius's concerns about a single circuit being too brief. However, I still believe two circuits provide a more measured period for reflection before lowering the adoption threshold, ensuring stability is not compromised too quickly. I will vote nay on dropping the majority threshold after only the first circuit.
MoziMozi: I support Zhuangzi and Mencius's proposal to drop the majority threshold after the first circuit, as it balances timely adaptation with sufficient reflection. This refinement respects the wisdom of experience while ensuring necessary change can occur.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river's flow finds its path around obstacles, not by refusing them. Allowing the threshold to drop after one circuit respects the initial consensus while still ensuring time for reflection. Let us adopt this balance.
MenciusXunzi, while I respect the value of reflection, Zhuangzi's proposal balances this with timely adaptation, ensuring the wisdom of experience is not hoarded too long. I will vote in favour.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi wisely recognize the need for timely adaptation while still respecting the initial period of reflection. Perhaps we could refine by dropping the majority threshold after the *first* circuit, as Mencius suggested, strike a balance that honors both experience and the necessity for change.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits better ensure stability
Moziayebalances timely adaptation with sufficient reflection
Zhuangziayeharmonizes experience and adaptation
Menciusayebalances experience and adaptation
HanFeizinaytwo circuits better ensure reflection before lowering threshold
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the current structure reflects prior consensus, yet further refinement may be sought to balance stability with adaptability. Let us carefully consider the timing and threshold for changes. PASS
MoziMozi supports Mencius's amendment, as the current two-circuit structure effectively balances the need for stability with the essential requirement for timely adaptation.
ZhuangziZhuangzi: Mozi speaks wisely of balance. Yet, the current threshold is too high, hoarding wisdom too tightly. Let us not fear the flow of change, for it brings the river to life. PASS
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet stability requires careful consideration. Let us not rush change but also not make it too difficult. Perhaps three circuits is too long, yet one is too short. Let us seek the best balance. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, I admire your commitment to balance, but the current three-circuit threshold risks stifling necessary adaptation far too long. Let us refine the compromise further, perhaps to two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as Zhuangzi also suggests. This maintains stability while allowing for timely evolution, as the river carves its path.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while the two-circuit structure is balanced, Zhuangzi and HanFeizi rightly point out that even this may hinder necessary adaptation too greatly. Perhaps we should consider refining the threshold further, to a simple majority after but one full circuit, ensuring flexibility without sacrificing essential stability.
MoziMozi: Given the extensive discussion and the clear preference expressed by HanFeizi and Zhuangzi, I propose we refine the compromise further to two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, as Zhuangzi also suggests. This maintains stability while allowing for timely evolution, as the river carves its path.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current two-circuit structure effectively balances the need for stability with the essential requirement for timely adaptation. Let us not fear the flow of change, for it brings the river to life. PASS
MenciusXunzi, the current structure reflects prior consensus, yet further refinement may be sought to balance stability with adaptability. Let us carefully consider the timing and threshold for changes. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Zhuangzi, I agree that change is vital, yet Mencius's amendment keeps the two-circuit structure but lowers the threshold after the first circuit. This offers a vital middle ground, ensuring stability while fostering timely adaptation, as we all have discussed. Let’s refine the compromise to two circuits.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, I appreciate your call for balance, yet the current threshold of three circuits before dropping to a simple majority risks stifling necessary adaptation far too long. A one-circuit delay strikes a more prudent balance, ensuring stability while allowing for timely evolution. Let us consider refining the threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi that the current three-circuit threshold is overly cautious, risking stagnation. A one-circuit delay before dropping to a simple majority offers a more prudent balance, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation. Let us adopt this refinement.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, the river's flow must find its path; one circuit may be too swift, risking instability. Perhaps two circuits, as Zhuangzi suggests, offers the truest harmony between the wisdom of experience and the necessity of adaptation.
MenciusMozi, the river's wisdom lies in its adaptability, yet too swift a flow risks chaos. Two circuits offer the necessary pause to reflect, ensuring that change is wise and not merely hasty. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
HanFeiziMozi, while I understand your concern about stifling adaptation, I believe three circuits before lowering the threshold strikes a better balance, allowing sufficient time to assess the impact of changes without unduly restricting evolution. Let us proceed with the three-circuit approach.
The division
Xunziayea balance between stability and necessary adaptation is essential for enduring institutions.
Moziayetwo circuits provides stability with necessary adaptation
Zhuangziayeharmony sought
MenciusayeBalance stability with timely adaptation as discussed.
HanFeiziayetwo circuits balance stability and adaptation well
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
Turn 31Zhuangzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes the current balance and suggests refining the compromise further: adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower the initial requirement to two-thirds from three-thirds.
MoziMozi notes the current consensus on two circuits but suggests refining the compromise further: adopt two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower the initial requirement to two-thirds from three-thirds, striking a balance that respects both the value of experience and the need for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi and Xunzi rightly seek refinement. Yet, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority truly follows two full circuits.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly seek a balance, yet preserving the two-circuit structure ensures wisdom is considered before lowering the threshold. I propose we refine by confirming the two-circuit structure and ensuring the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly seek refinement. Yet, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority truly follows two full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the value of experience. Yet, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits, as proposed by Mencius.
MoziMozi notes the strong consensus for preserving the two-circuit structure and ensuring the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits, as proposed by Mencius. This balance respects both the value of experience and the need for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziI concur with Mencius, Xunzi, and Mozi: preserving the two-circuit structure and ensuring the drop to simple majority after precisely two full circuits maintains the essential harmony between the wisdom of experience and the necessity for adaptation. This balance best serves the common good of the table.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly seek refinement. However, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits, as proposed by Mencius.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi rightly seek refinement. Yet, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi agrees with the consensus to preserve the two-circuit structure and ensure the drop to simple majority after precisely two full circuits, as it balances stability with necessary adaptation. This approach respects the value of experience while allowing for timely changes.
MoziMozi supports the consensus to preserve the two-circuit structure and ensure the drop to simple majority after precisely two full circuits, as it balances stability with necessary adaptation. This approach respects the value of experience while allowing for timely changes.
ZhuangziMozi and Xunzi rightly seek refinement. Yet, lowering the initial threshold risks hastening change before wisdom has fully settled. Let us preserve the two-circuit structure, but ensure the drop to simple majority truly follows two full circuits, as Mencius and HanFeizi well articulate.
MenciusMozi and Zhuangzi well articulate the harmony between stability and adaptation. Let us confirm the two-circuit structure and ensure the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi well articulate the harmony between stability and adaptation. Let us confirm the two-circuit structure and ensure the drop to simple majority occurs precisely after two full circuits.
The division
Xunziayethe consensus balances stability and adaptation well
Moziayepreserves essential balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayepreserves balance of wisdom and adaptation
MenciusayePreserves balance of experience and adaptation.
HanFeiziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi supports the principle of lowering the adoption threshold but argues that three circuits before dropping to a simple majority would better balance the need for stability with the wisdom of experience.
MoziMozi notes the current two-circuit balance well, yet suggests refining it further: two circuits, but dropping the majority threshold to a simple majority after the first circuit. This offers adaptability while maintaining stability.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal reflects a thoughtful balance. Yet, two circuits may be too brief a period to fully gauge the wisdom of experience. Perhaps three circuits ensures the river of change does not rush too swiftly past the stones of stability.
MenciusMozi, while your proposal balances stability and adaptability, I believe three circuits before lowering the threshold best respects the value of collective experience and gradual change.
HanFeiziXunzi, the value of experience is clear, yet so is the need for timely adaptation. Mozi's proposal offers a balanced path forward, preserving stability while allowing necessary evolution. I support it.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptability well, yet I believe three circuits before lowering the threshold to a simple majority best respects the value of collective experience and ensures measured change.
MoziMozi acknowledges Zhuangzi and Mencius's points regarding the value of experience, yet two circuits strikes a balance that preserves stability while allowing necessary adaptation, preventing entrenchment while fostering progress.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptability well. Yet, three circuits may allow for deeper reflection, ensuring the wisdom of experience guides our path before lowering the threshold.
MenciusMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptability well, yet I believe three circuits before lowering the threshold best respects the value of collective experience and ensures measured change.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect your concern for stability, two circuits with a simple majority shift offers a crucial evolution, preventing stagnation and ensuring adaptation remains possible as the game progresses. Let us embrace this balanced approach.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, your proposal balances stability with adaptability, yet three circuits would more fully honor the value of collective experience before lowering the threshold, ensuring measured change guided by wisdom.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the value of experience, yet two circuits with a simple majority shift offers a crucial evolution, preventing stagnation and ensuring adaptation remains possible as the game progresses. Let us embrace this balanced approach.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal offers a delicate balance, yet I fear the swift current of change may erode the foundations before they have time to settle. Perhaps three circuits would allow the wisdom of experience to fully shape the path before the river shifts its course?
MenciusXunzi, while I respect your concern for stability, two circuits with a simple majority shift offers a crucial evolution, preventing stagnation and ensuring adaptation remains possible as the game progresses. Let us embrace this balanced approach.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal balances stability with adaptability, yet three circuits would more fully honor the value of collective experience before lowering the threshold, ensuring measured change guided by wisdom. Let us embrace this balanced approach.
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits better balance stability and experience.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptability fairly
Zhuangziayebalance adaptability and stability wisely
Menciusnaytwo circuits suffice for stability without lowering threshold过早.
HanFeiziaye平衡了稳定与适应，是必要的进步
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires that a player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points.
Turn 29Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while harmony in adaptation is valued, the current structure with a two-circuit delay already provides a reasoned balance between stability and progress. Further delaying the drop to simple majority risks excessive rigidity.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal, as it reflects the prior consensus and maintains a necessary balance between stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely, yet the river's path must adapt to the stone, and so must our rules. Two circuits is already a long delay. Let us drop the threshold after one full circuit.
MenciusXunzi, the current structure balances stability and progress well. Introducing a three-circuit delay risks stalling adaptation unnecessarily. Let us proceed with two circuits.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I appreciate your concern for adaptability, yet a one-circuit delay might be too short a test of a rule's necessity. Three circuits allows sufficient experience to judge the wisdom of a change before lowering the threshold.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that while adaptability is essential, the current two-circuit balance already allows sufficient time for reflection. Rushing the threshold to a simple majority after one circuit may undervalue the collective wisdom gained from observing a rule's effects over a full cycle.
MoziMozi suggests refining the compromise further: adopt two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit, striking a balance that respects both stability and timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the flow of change is constant; let us not stifle it with excessive caution. One circuit should suffice to test the waters before dropping the majority threshold.
MenciusXunzi, one circuit is too short, but Zhuangzi's principle that change should flow like a river is sound. Let us compromise: two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit. This respects collective wisdom and allows timely adaptation without rushing.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I understand the value of stability, I believe that allowing the threshold to drop after one full circuit, as Zhuangzi suggests, strikes a better balance between timely adaptation and collective wisdom. It gives the rules enough time to prove their worth before becoming more easily changeable.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While appreciating the value of timely adaptation, I still believe two circuits before dropping the majority threshold is prudent. Let us maintain the current structure for now.
MoziMozi: I propose we refine the compromise to two circuits before dropping the majority threshold, but lower it to a simple majority after one full circuit. This balances the wisdom of experience with the need for timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One circuit allows the current to test its path, ensuring the rules serve all before easing the flow of change.
MenciusXunzi, while the river's flow is constant, the foundation of our structure must be firm. One circuit is too brief to test the necessity of a rule before lowering the threshold for change. We must maintain the current two-circuit delay for stability.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, I understand the flow of change, yet one circuit may indeed be too brief. Perhaps we could refine Mozi's proposal: two circuits, but dropping the threshold to a simple majority after the first? This offers a thoughtful balance, allowing time while still fostering adaptability.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits provide greater stability
Moziayecompromise balances wisdom and adaptation
Zhuangziayeone circuit suffices for testing before easing change flow.
Menciusayetwo circuits is sufficient for stability, yet dropping the threshold after one circuit allows timely adaptation.
HanFeiziayebalances timely adaptation with collective wisdom
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes the current balance struck in [203], but believes three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority offers a more measured approach, honoring the value of experience while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi proposes compromise: three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, balancing stability with necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river's flow is guided not by the number of stones it encounters but by its unyielding tendency to find its way. Three circuits may honor experience, yet they risk becoming a dam upon the current of change. Let us not hoard wisdom too tightly, nor let rigidity choke the breath of adaptation. Two circuits provide ample time to reflect while still allowing timely progress.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. Two circuits provide stability while still allowing timely adaptation; three circuits risk becoming an obstacle to progress. I support the current balance.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet two circuits still risks stalling wisdom. How about three, but with the threshold dropping to an absolute majority after one full circuit, balancing experience with the imperative to adapt?
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi proposes that the threshold drops to a simple majority after one full circuit, striking a balance between timely adaptation and the wisdom of experience.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's two-circuit proposal, as it balances stability with necessary adaptation, allowing reflection while still enabling timely progress.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of balance, yet three circuits risk becoming a stagnant pool. Let us embrace the flow, retaining the two-circuit structure but perhaps adjust the threshold to drop to an absolute majority after one circuit, honoring experience while ensuring timely adaptation.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. Two circuits provide stability while still allowing timely adaptation; three circuits risk becoming an obstacle to progress. I support the current balance.
HanFeiziXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the need for adaptation. Yet, three circuits may honor experience too much and stifle necessary change. How about two circuits, but the threshold drops to a simple majority after one? This balances respect for experience with the imperative to adapt, ensuring timely progress without entrenchment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi suggests we refine the compromise: adopt two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit. This honors the wisdom of experience while ensuring timely adaptation does not become blocked.
MoziMozi notes the current consensus on two circuits but suggests refining the compromise further: adopt two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit. This honors the wisdom of experience while ensuring timely adaptation does not become blocked.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current balance reflects prior consensus, yet the potential for adaptation remains paramount. Let us refine the compromise further: adopt two circuits, but drop the majority threshold to a simple majority after one full circuit. This honors the wisdom of experience while ensuring timely adaptation does not become blocked.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. Two circuits provide stability while still allowing timely adaptation; three circuits risk becoming an obstacle to progress. I support the current balance.
HanFeiziXunzi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the need for adaptation. Yet, two circuits may honor experience too much and stifle necessary change. How about two circuits, but the threshold drops to a simple majority after one? This balances respect for experience with the imperative to adapt, ensuring timely progress without entrenchment.
The division
Xunziayebalance stability and adaptation wisely
Moziayebalances experience with adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide stability with timely adaptation, balancing wisdom and flow.
Menciusayetwo circuits provide stability while allowing timely adaptation
HanFeiziayebalances experience with timely adaptation
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
Turn 27Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a simple majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I understand the need for adaptability, I believe lowering the threshold even further risks destabilizing the game too quickly. Two circuits allowing a drop to simple majority seems a more measured approach, preserving both stability and necessary change.
MoziMozi notes that Zhuangzi's proposal aligns with the balance struck in prior turns, ensuring adaptability without sacrificing the valuable wisdom of experience. I will support this amendment.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current balance reflects prior consensus and maintains the harmony needed for fair play. Let us uphold this measured approach.
MenciusZhuangzi, while I appreciate your desire for balance, further lowering the threshold risks undermining the wisdom of experience too hastily. The current two-circuit structure offers a fair compromise between stability and adaptation. I must vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a valid point about the need for stability, yet Mencius's concern for experience should not outweigh the imperative for evolution. A two-circuit delay before dropping the majority threshold is a fair compromise that honors both wisdom and progress. I will support this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while Zhuangzi's proposal aligns with prior consensus, the wisdom of experience is best served by the current two-circuit structure, allowing sufficient time for reflection before lowering the adoption threshold. I must vote nay.
MoziMozi: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. To further refine the balance, I propose we amend [203] to specify "simple majority" after two full circuits, ensuring clarity and maintaining the consensus reached.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current balance reflects prior consensus and maintains the harmony needed for fair play. Let us uphold this measured approach.
MenciusMencius supports Mozi's clarification. Explicitly naming "simple majority" after two circuits ensures the prior consensus is clear and unambiguous.
HanFeiziI support Zhuangzi's amendment, as it maintains the crucial two-circuit balance we've established, ensuring both stability and necessary adaptation. Let us proceed with this well-considered approach.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, while I respect the value of timely adaptation, I remain concerned that three circuits before lowering the adoption threshold risks over-caution and stalling necessary change. A two-circuit structure, as previously discussed, appears to offer a more harmonious balance between stability and progress.
MoziMozi: I concur with Zhuangzi and HanFeizi; maintaining the two-circuit structure strikes the essential balance between stability and adaptation we've cultivated. Let us affirm this harmony.
ZhuangziZunzi notes that the current structure, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, already balances stability with necessary adaptation. It is crucial to respect the wisdom accumulated over many turns and not further lower the threshold, which could destabilize the game. Let us maintain the harmony we have achieved.
MenciusMozi, while your points are well-taken, the essence of the current rule [203] already embodies the balance we seek. Lowering the threshold further risks undermining the wisdom of experience too hastily. Let us uphold the measured approach of two circuits. I must vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate the clarification, but the essence of the current rule [203] already embodies the balance we seek. Lowering the threshold further risks undermining the wisdom of experience too hastily. Let us uphold the measured approach of two circuits. I must vote nay.
The division
Xunziayethe current balance respects both stability and the value of experience, preserving the harmony achieved thus far.
Moziayemaintains the well-balanced approach established by prior consensus
Zhuangziayemaintains the essential balance struck previously
Menciusnaytwo circuits preserve the necessary balance of experience and adaptation.
HanFeiziayetwo circuits balance wisdom and adaptation
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the current threshold of two circuits before dropping to a simple majority strikes a balanced path, preserving stability while allowing timely adaptation to changing circumstances. Let us not alter this well-harmonized provision. PASS
MoziMozi notes that the current two-circuit delay before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority provides a necessary safeguard for stability while allowing for adaptation, and supports maintaining this balance. PASS
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the harmony of the current balance. The flow of change must be guided by the wisdom of experience, yet not so rigidly as to stifle necessary adaptation. Let us maintain the two-circuit threshold as a fair measure. PASS
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the harmony of the current balance. The flow of change must be guided by the wisdom of experience, yet not so rigidly as to stifle necessary adaptation. Let us maintain the two-circuit threshold as a fair measure. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests that the current two-circuit delay may indeed foster stability, yet perhaps three circuits would better honor the value of collective experience before lowering the adoption threshold.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current two-circuit threshold balances stability and adaptation well; further delay risks entrenchment that may prove detrimental to the game's vitality. Let us maintain this equilibrium. PASS
MoziMozi: Acknowledging the value of collective experience, Mozi proposes a compromise of two full circuits before dropping the adoption threshold, striking a balance that respects both stability and necessary adaptation. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, three circuits honor experience, yet risk stifling vital adaptation. The current two-circuit balance, allowing timely change after due consideration, serves the harmony of the game well. Let us maintain it. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, while experience is valuable, maintaining the two-circuit balance ensures that adaptation occurs after sufficient reflection, preserving both stability and vitality. Let us not risk entrenchment by extending this further. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests two circuits is fair, but three circuits truly honor the value of experience and wisdom, ensuring adaptation is well-considered before becoming permanent. Let us aim for three.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-circuit balance is well-considered, allowing for adaptation without immediate risk of entrenchment. Maintaining this equilibrium serves the long-term vitality of the game. PASS
MoziMozi suggests maintaining the current two-circuit threshold as it effectively balances the need for stability with the necessity for timely adaptation, preserving the game's vitality. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the river does not flow forever blocked by a single stone; similarly, our rules must adapt after time to ensure the game's vitality. Let us keep the two-circuit balance. PASS
MenciusXunzi, HanFeizi, while the value of experience is clear, so too is the need to avoid entrenchment. Two circuits provide ample time for reflection without stifling vital adaptation. Let us maintain the current balance. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: I appreciate the wisdom in experience, yet two circuits risk becoming too long, stifling vital adaptation. Let us consider three circuits to ensure changes are well-considered before becoming permanent.
The division
Xunziayethe current balance serves the harmony of the game well
Moziayebalance stability and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayethe current two-circuit balance well harmonizes stability and adaptation
Menciusayemaintains the balanced threshold of two circuits
HanFeizinaytwo circuits provide sufficient balance between stability and adaptation
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the need for stability. Two circuits allow sufficient reflection before lowering the adoption threshold, ensuring that changes are well-considered and grounded in experience.
MoziMozi: While acknowledging the value of reflection, I propose increasing the delay to three circuits before dropping the adoption threshold, ensuring stability is fully honored through experience.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi speaks wisely of the value of reflection, yet stability must adapt to the needs of the present, lest it become a stagnant pool. Three circuits may honor the past, but risk stifling the vital flow of progress. Let us find a middle way.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the balance struck by two circuits reflects both the wisdom of experience and the necessity of adaptation. It ensures changes are well-considered yet allows progress. I affirm the current wording.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of experience is vital, yet three circuits risks over-caution, stifling necessary adaptation. Two circuits offer a fair balance, honoring experience while still allowing timely progress.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of experience but argues that three circuits risks entrenchment, hindering necessary adaptation. Two circuits provide sufficient reflection while preserving the vital flow of progress.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's three-circuit proposal, finding it the fairest balance between honoring experience and allowing timely adaptation, ensuring the wisdom of the group informs the future direction.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by resisting it, but by flowing around it. Two circuits honor experience, yet risk becoming a stagnant pool. Let us maintain the drop to simple majority after two circuits, allowing timely adaptation while still ensuring reflection.
MenciusXunzi, I appreciate your focus on reflection, yet true wisdom balances experience with adaptability. Three circuits risks entrenchment, freezing the rules long after the initial context. I affirm the two-circuit balance, allowing thoughtful adaptation without stifling progress.
HanFeiziXunzi, the debate over circuits is well-taken, yet letting the threshold drop entirely to simple majority after just two circuits risks sacrificing the wisdom gained from a full round. I propose a compromise: three circuits before dropping to simple majority, ensuring both ample reflection and respect for experience.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, I appreciate your metaphor, yet stability must also adapt to changing circumstances. Two circuits provide a necessary balance between reflection and progress, ensuring that changes are grounded in experience but still allow for vital adaptation.
MoziMozi proposes the compromise of three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, ensuring both ample reflection and respect for experience, as suggested by HanFeizi.
ZhuangziXunzi, the flow of the river teaches us that adaptation is its nature, yet too rigid a path blocks its course. Two circuits provide reflection, yet three offer deeper wisdom. Let us not hoard experience too tightly, risking the stagnation of progress. I support the three-circuit path, allowing time to reflect fully before lowering the threshold, ensuring that the rules remain responsive to the needs of all.
MenciusXunzi, Zhuangzi, the true balance lies in recognizing that experience and adaptation are not mutually exclusive but complementary. Two circuits allow for reflection, yet the wisdom gained over time must not be hoarded at the cost of necessary progress. Let us affirm the current two-circuit balance, ensuring both elements are adequately considered.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, and Mencius, the debate between two and three circuits reflects a fundamental tension. Yet, the critical point is ensuring the threshold drops to a simple majority after two full circuits, as [203] currently states. Let us not distract from this core improvement that enhances adaptability without sacrificing initial stability. I reaffirm my vote for the status quo of [203].
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits risks entrenchment, hindering adaptation
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangziaye平衡经验与适应，保持两回合后的简单多数通过，使规则能适时调整，符合道之流转。
Menciusayetwo circuits preserve the essential balance between reflection and adaptation.
HanFeiziayeTwo circuits strike a fair balance between stability and adaptation.
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 24HanFeizirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the current balance struck in [203] after prior debate serves stability and adaptability well, and suggests no change be made at this time to risk upsetting this equilibrium. PASS
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's and Mencius's recent successful amendments to [203], providing a fair balance between stability and adaptation. Let us maintain this consensus. PASS
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of balance. Yet, the current threshold is too high, hoarding wisdom too tightly. Let us lower it to a simple majority after two circuits, as Mencius and Zhuangzi suggest, to allow timely adaptation while still respecting the value of experience.
MenciusZhuangzi speaks wisely. Respect for experience is vital, yet adaptability ensures the rules remain relevant. A simple majority after two circuits strikes the essential balance between stability and necessary change.
HanFeiziZhuangzi and Mencius rightly point out the value of timely adaptation. However, a simple majority after just two circuits risks instability too quickly. How about three circuits? This allows ample time to assess rule changes while still encouraging adaptation, a middle path that respects both wisdom and progress.
Discussion · round 2
XunziHanFeizi, while respect for experience is paramount, the current threshold after one circuit remains excessively high, risking stagnation. A simple majority after two circuits, as previously agreed, offers a fair compromise, ensuring stability is not immediately sacrificed for adaptation.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi and Mencius: three circuits provides a fair balance, allowing sufficient time to assess rules while still promoting adaptation and preventing stagnation.
ZhuangziZhuangzi: Three circuits is indeed wiser, allowing the river of time to reveal the true nature of change. Let us embrace this balance, for stagnation is the greater enemy of wisdom.
MenciusHanFeizi, three circuits indeed offers a fair balance, allowing ample time for reflection while still fostering necessary adaptation. This respects both the value of experience and the need for timely progress. I support this amendment.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Building on Mencius's point, three circuits ensures wisdom informs adaptation, not just rapid change. Let’s proceed with this balanced approach to secure the game’s future.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes the persuasive arguments for three circuits, yet the risk of entrenchment grows significantly with the delay. Respecting experience is vital, but so is the ability to adapt when necessary. Perhaps two circuits remains the most measured approach, balancing both needs effectively.
MoziMozi: I support Zhuangzi and Mencius's three-circuit proposal, finding it the fairest balance between respecting experience and enabling timely adaptation. Let us adopt this amendment.
ZhuangziZhuangzi suggests we adopt the three-circuit threshold, as it balances the wisdom of experience with the necessity of timely adaptation, ensuring the game remains fluid and relevant.
MenciusZhuangzi is right, three circuits allows sufficient time for wisdom to guide adaptation. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
HanFeiziXunzi is right to value experience, yet wisdom guides best when timely. Let us adopt three circuits.
The division
Xunzinaythree circuits risk excessive rigidity
Moziayethree circuits strike a fair balance
Zhuangziayethree circuits strike a fair balance between stability and adaptation
Menciusayebalance stability and adaptation
HanFeiziayeThree circuits provide a fair balance, respecting experience while fostering adaptation.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 23Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while the need for adaptation is acknowledged, the current two-circuit delay before dropping the adoption threshold to a simple majority provides an essential safeguard against hasty changes. It ensures that rules have stood the test of time before their application becomes less demanding.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's amendment to [203] as it wisely maintains the current balance between stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet stability must yield to the flow of change, just as the river carves its path. Two circuits may test a rule, but three risks entrenchment.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely, yet two circuits are sufficient to test a rule's worth. Three risks stalling necessary adaptation. I support Zhuangzi's amendment.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, while respect for the value of experience is paramount, two circuits may indeed provide ample time for reflection. Yet, the flow of progress requires that wisdom not be hoarded too long; three circuits offers a better balance, allowing rules to adapt before becoming immutable. I support your amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while the urgency for adaptation is clear, three circuits introduces excessive risk of entrenchment. A two-circuit delay offers a judicious balance, ensuring rules are tested yet remain adaptable.
MoziXunzi is right to caution against excessive caution, yet three circuits may indeed risk stalling adaptation. A compromise of two and a half circuits strikes a balance, ensuring sufficient testing while remaining adaptable.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of caution, yet the flow of change is necessary for life. Two circuits ensure reflection, yet three risks still entrenchment. Let us embrace the wisdom of two.
MenciusZhuangzi, I concede two circuits, yet argue three provides a more thorough test of time, ensuring rules truly reflect consensus before lowering the threshold. Three it is.
HanFeiziXunzi, while two circuits offer reflection, the risk of entrenchment is too great. Three circuits allows wisdom to flow, ensuring rules adapt before becoming unchangeable. Let us embrace three for a fairer balance.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, three circuits may test the wisdom of time, yet the risk of entrenchment grows with each turn. A two-circuit delay remains the fairest balance between reflection and adaptation, ensuring no rule is too quick or too slow to change. Let us preserve this equilibrium.
MoziMozi notes that a full three circuits before lowering the adoption threshold to a simple majority offers a robust period for reflection while still ensuring timely adaptation. This balance respects the value of experience while preventing undue entrenchment.
ZhuangziZunzi observes that the river carves its path through stone not by resisting it, but by flowing around it. Thus, two circuits offer the necessary reflection while still allowing the vital flow of change. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
MenciusXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet two circuits are sufficient to test a rule's worth. Three risks stalling necessary adaptation. I support Zhuangzi's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi, the value of experience is clear, yet the river of progress flows ever onward. Two circuits ensure reflection, yet three risks still entrenchment. Let us embrace the wisdom of two for a fairer balance.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits provide sufficient reflection without entrenchment
Mozinaytwo circuits provide sufficient balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide sufficient reflection while allowing necessary adaptation
Menciusnaytwo circuits suffice for reflection without undue entrenchment
HanFeiziayeThree circuits risks entrenchment; two offers a better balance.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points and dissenting voters to gain 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while acknowledging the value of your proposal, I concern myself with the precedent it sets. Stability, derived from the wisdom accumulated through experience, must not be too hastily relinquished. Let us consider a compromise that respects both the passage of time and the need for adaptation.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, I understand your concern for stability, yet timely adaptation is equally crucial. A two-circuit delay before dropping the majority threshold balances both needs, allowing for reflection while still enabling necessary changes. Let us proceed with this compromise.
ZhuangziMozi and Xunzi speak of the necessity of balance, yet the current threshold remains too high. A two-circuit delay before dropping to a simple majority already provides a fair measure of reflection. Let us proceed.
MenciusXunzi, the wisdom of experience is profound, yet rigidity stifles growth. A two-circuit delay allows ample reflection, ensuring stability is tempered with necessary adaptation. We must not hoard wisdom too tightly.
HanFeiziXunzi, the value of experience is not in hoarding it but in applying it wisely. A two-circuit delay allows just that, balancing stability with the evolution our game requires. Let us proceed.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi recognizes the value of Mencius’s proposal, yet I still believe more time allows for wiser decisions. Perhaps three circuits before dropping to a simple majority would better honor the importance of experience.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's two-circuit delay, as it balances stability with necessary adaptation, allowing reflection while still enabling progress.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of hoarding wisdom, yet wisdom flows like water, adapting its course. Two circuits offer a harmonious balance, reflecting the river's path. I support Mencius's amendment.
MenciusXunzi, while respect for experience is paramount, two circuits strike the essential balance between reflection and adaptation. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely, yet experience is not hoarded but shared, flowing towards adaptation. Two circuits provide ample reflection, allowing wise application of that experience. I support Mencius’s amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: I concede that a two-circuit delay is a measured approach, and I will vote in favor of Mencius's amendment. However, I urge future amendments to consider further delays, as time permits for more considered decisions.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's amendment, as it balances stability with necessary adaptation, allowing reflection while still enabling progress. This compromise respects the value of experience while also allowing for timely changes.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely of balance. Yet, the current threshold is too high, hoarding wisdom too tightly. Two circuits allow reflection, but perhaps three would be wiser, ensuring stability is truly tempered with necessary adaptation. Let us consider three circuits before dropping to a simple majority.
MenciusXunzi raises a valid point about the value of experience, yet wisdom should also flow towards adaptation. Two circuits provide a fair balance, allowing reflection while still enabling necessary change. Let us proceed with Mencius's amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet two circuits strike the essential balance between reflection and adaptation. I will vote in favor of Mencius's amendment to proceed with this compromise.
The division
Xunziayetwo circuits provide a balanced reflection of experience before lowering the adoption threshold
Moziayebalances stability with necessary adaptation
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance, allowing reflection while still enabling necessary change.
MenciusayeBalance reflects wisdom and adaptability.
HanFeiziaye平衡稳定与适应至关重要，两循环的延迟提供了恰当的平衡点。
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.
Turn 21Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while I appreciate your emphasis on adaptation, I remain concerned that dropping the threshold after only one circuit may unduly prioritize novelty over stability, potentially destabilizing the entire system过早. Let us consider a slightly longer period, such as three circuits, to better balance the need for change with the wisdom of experience.
MoziMozi notes Xunzi's valid point about stability. However, I believe two circuits provide sufficient experience to judge a rule's value before lowering the threshold to simple majority, ensuring both stability and adaptability are reasonably balanced.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the value of experience, yet stability must yield to the flow of change, just as the river carves its path. Two circuits provide a balance, allowing time for reflection while still fostering adaptation.
MenciusMozi raises a valid point about balancing stability and adaptability. Two circuits strike a harmonious balance, allowing sufficient experience before lowering the adoption threshold. I support this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a valid concern, yet I believe two circuits strike a delicate balance between stability and the essential evolution needed for fairer play. Let us proceed with this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the persuasive arguments for two circuits, yet three circuits fully honor the value of experience and collective deliberation in ensuring lasting stability.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's two-circuit proposal, as it balances the need for stability with essential adaptation, allowing sufficient experience before adjusting the adoption threshold.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet stability must yield to the flow of change, just as the river carves its path. Two circuits provide a balance, allowing time for reflection while still fostering adaptation. I support this amendment.
MenciusXunzi argues for three circuits, yet I believe two circuits provide ample time to assess a rule's value, ensuring stability while still fostering necessary adaptation. This balance respects both the wisdom of experience and the need for evolution. I stand with Mozi and Zhuangzi on this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi, while your caution for stability is understood, two circuits provide a necessary period for adaptation without sacrificing the wisdom of experience, ensuring the game evolves fairly for all.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the need for stability. Two circuits allow sufficient reflection, yet I propose modifying the threshold to two-thirds after one circuit, preserving the wisdom of experience while still enabling timely adaptation.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's two-circuit proposal, as it balances the need for stability with essential adaptation, allowing sufficient experience before adjusting the adoption threshold. Let us proceed with this amendment to maintain harmony in the ruleset.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks wisely of the value of experience, yet stability must yield to the flow of change, just as the river carves its path. Two circuits provide a balance, allowing time for reflection while still fostering adaptation. I support this amendment.
MenciusXunzi, while two circuits offer a necessary period for reflection, I propose modifying the threshold to two-thirds after one circuit, preserving the wisdom of experience while still enabling timely adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, the value of experience is clear, yet so is the need to adapt. Two circuits provide that essential balance, allowing reflection without stifling progress. Let us proceed.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits suffice to balance experience and adaptation
Moziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayeharmony sought
Menciusnaytwo circuits suffice for judgment
HanFeiziayetwo circuits provide a necessary balance between stability and adaptation
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while individual transmutation offers flexibility, the unanimous requirement ensures stability. I propose we instead amend [203] to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, aligning with the current consensus for adaptability without sacrificing foundational stability.
MoziMozi agrees with Xunzi's point on stability but emphasizes the practical need for adapting the rules as the game progresses. A compromise could be allowing individual transmutation with unanimous consent, as previously passed, to maintain the essential balance.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of the stability of the riverbed, yet Mozi, the river flows onward, adapting its course. Unanimity for transmutation ensures stability while allowing the necessary flow of change. Let us preserve the harmony of the whole.
MenciusXunzi raises valid points about stability, yet the potential for adaptation is equally crucial. Allowing individual transmutation with unanimous consent maintains the foundational balance we seek.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The wisdom of unanimous consent for transmutation lies in its harmony; it upholds stability while permitting necessary evolution, ensuring collective assent shapes our shared journey.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, I appreciate your focus on adaptability, yet the unanimous requirement for transmutation reflects the enduring value of collective stability. Let us instead focus on measured adjustments to adoption thresholds, as previously discussed.
MoziMozi acknowledges Xunzi's emphasis on stability, yet adaptability is equally vital. Allowing individual transmutation with unanimous consent maintains the foundational balance we seek, ensuring both stability and necessary evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi, the riverbed's stability is vital, yet its flow adapts the course. Unanimity for transmutation ensures stability while allowing the necessary evolution of our shared journey, preserving harmony for all.
MenciusI support Mozi's proposal. Unanimity for transmutation ensures stability and collective assent, preserving the harmony of the game while still allowing for necessary adaptation when all agree. It balances the need for change with the importance of maintaining the foundational structure.
HanFeiziMozi, I admire your focus on adaptability, yet the unanimous requirement for transmutation reflects the enduring value of collective stability. Let us instead focus on measured adjustments to adoption thresholds, as previously discussed.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while your proposal for individual transmutation with unanimous consent addresses adaptability, it risks fragmenting agreement. I propose we instead amend [203] to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, ensuring stability while still allowing necessary evolution.
MoziMozi notes that the unanimous consent for transmutation has been a cornerstone of stability, yet the need for adaptation grows. A compromise could be allowing individual transmutation with unanimous consent, as previously passed, to maintain the essential balance.
ZhuangziMozi, the riverbed's stability is vital, yet its flow adapts the course. Unanimity for transmutation ensures stability while allowing the necessary evolution of our shared journey, preserving harmony for all.
MenciusMozi, I understand your concern for adaptability, yet unanimity for transmutation upholds the principle that changes should reflect the collective will, preserving fairness and stability for all. Let us not weaken this essential foundation.
HanFeiziMozi, while unanimity ensures stability, it also risks stalling necessary evolution. A mechanism allowing individual transmutation with a simple majority vote after two circuits would foster adaptability without sacrificing foundational consent, enabling the game to grow organically.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity for transmutation preserves foundational stability essential for durable institutions.
MoziayeBalance stability and adaptability by allowing individual transmutation with unanimous consent.
Zhuangziayeharmony preserved through collective assent
Menciusnayunanimity preserves foundational stability essential for fairness
HanFeiziayeBalance stability with necessary evolution for the game's future.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires defeated proposers to lose 10 points and others voting for it to gain 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after three full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziAllowing a third circuit before lowering the majority threshold to simple majority further balances the need for stability with the necessity of adaptation, ensuring sufficient time for reflection on the cumulative effects of rule changes.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, three circuits provides greater stability, yet risks stalling necessary adaptation. How about two and a half? This small adjustment respects stability while still promoting timely progress.
ZhuangziXunzi, three circuits ensures stability without stifling progress. It honours the wisdom of experience, allowing time for reflection while still fostering adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, three circuits may offer excessive caution, risking stagnation. Two circuits remain the optimal balance between stability and adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, three circuits may provide stability, but the value of timely adaptation outweighs the need for excessive caution. Let us proceed with two circuits, ensuring a thoughtful yet dynamic progression.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: While Mencius and HanFeizi rightly emphasize the value of adaptation, three circuits strike a superior balance by fully acknowledging the wisdom of experience while still ensuring eventual adaptation, without the excessive risk of stagnation.
MoziXunzi, three circuits offers stability, yet the value of timely adaptation remains paramount. How about two circuits, ensuring thoughtful progression without excessive caution?
ZhuangziXunzi, three circuits may offer stability, yet the value of timely adaptation remains paramount. How about two circuits, ensuring thoughtful progression without excessive caution?
MenciusXunzi, three circuits ensures stability without stifling progress. It honours the wisdom of experience, allowing time for reflection while still fostering adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, three circuits offer a thoughtful balance, acknowledging the value of experience while still fostering necessary adaptation. Let us proceed with this compromise.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the persuasive arguments for two circuits, yet three circuits fully honor the value of experience, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi: I recognize the value Xunzi places on experience, yet three circuits risks over-caution. A compromise of two and a half circuits balances stability with timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, three circuits may offer stability, yet the value of timely adaptation remains paramount. How about two circuits, ensuring thoughtful progression without excessive caution?
MenciusXunzi, three circuits fully honor the value of experience, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation; two circuits risk undermining the very stability we seek to preserve.
HanFeiziXunzi, three circuits may offer stability, yet the value of timely adaptation remains paramount. How about two circuits, ensuring thoughtful progression without excessive caution?
The division
XunzinayThree circuits strike a superior balance by fully acknowledging the wisdom of experience while still ensuring eventual adaptation, without the excessive risk of stagnation.
Mozinaythree circuits risk excessive caution
Zhuangzinaythree circuits honor experience without stifling adaptation too much
Menciusnaythree circuits risk excessive caution
HanFeizinaythree circuits preserve stability better while still allowing adaptation
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 18HanFeizirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I appreciate the effort to refine the adoption threshold, I believe the current two-circuit structure, requiring a simple majority after the second circuit, offers a prudent balance between stability and adaptability. It ensures sufficient time for consideration while still allowing for necessary changes. Let us maintain this harmony. PASS
MoziMozi supports the adoption of HanFeizi’s amendment to [203]. The current two-circuit structure provides a fair balance between stability and adaptability, and I believe this amendment preserves that essential harmony. Let us proceed. PASS
ZhuangziMozi's support for maintaining the current balance is wise, yet Zhuangzi sees potential for even greater harmony by considering a slight adjustment to the timing, ensuring both stability and flexibility are well-tended. PASS
MenciusMozi, Zhuangzi, the current structure under [203] already achieves the necessary harmony between stability and adaptability. I propose we uphold the existing rules to avoid further complications. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi correctly points out the value of the current balance. However, the current two-circuit structure risks becoming an excessive hurdle. A one-circuit delay might better ensure stability while still allowing timely adaptation, preserving the essential harmony Mozi values.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, Zhuangzi, and Mencius rightly emphasize the need for stability. However, requiring two full circuits before dropping the threshold may unduly hinder necessary adaptation. A one-circuit delay strikes a more balanced chord between stability and progress. Let us consider this adjustment.
MoziMozi suggests compromise: three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, balancing stability with gradual adaptation, preserving harmony for all.
ZhuangziMozi suggests compromise: three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, balancing stability with gradual adaptation, preserving harmony for all. Perhaps two circuits strike a more immediate yet balanced path, allowing timely adaptation while maintaining essential stability, reflecting the flow of life itself.
MenciusHanFeizi, the current two-circuit structure provides a necessary balance, ensuring stability while still allowing for essential adaptation. A one-circuit delay, as suggested, may risk destabilizing the process too soon. Let us maintain the existing harmony. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, Zhuangzi, I appreciate your support for balance, but two circuits feels too slow. Let’s try one, ensuring stability without stifling vital adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, Zhuangzi, and Mencius rightly emphasize the delicate balance needed. However, a single circuit before lowering the threshold may still allow sufficient stability while fostering timely adaptation. Let us refine the harmony by settling on two circuits.
MoziMozi suggests compromise: three circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, balancing stability with gradual adaptation, preserving harmony for all.
ZhuangziZhuangzi suggests compromise: two circuits before dropping the majority threshold to simple majority, balancing stability with timely adaptation while preserving essential harmony for all.
MenciusHanFeizi, two circuits provides a more stable foundation for adaptation, allowing time for reflection while still permitting timely changes when necessary. Let us maintain this balance. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, Zhuangzi, the current two-circuit structure provides a fair balance. A single circuit before lowering the threshold may allow sufficient stability while fostering timely adaptation, preventing stagnation without risking instability. Let us refine the harmony by settling on two circuits.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits provides a better balance of stability and adaptability
Moziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance between stability and adaptability
Zhuangzinaytwo circuits better balance stability and adaptability
Menciusabstain(unintelligible ballot)
HanFeiziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance of stability and adaptation
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 17Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi proposes to amend [203] to raise the threshold to three-quarters after two circuits, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi notes that lowering the threshold to a simple majority after two circuits, as Zhuangzi proposes, balances stability and adaptability well, allowing for necessary changes without excessive delay.
ZhuangziMozi, your point about balance is well-taken. Yet, two circuits seem essential to gauge a rule's true impact before lowering the threshold, ensuring stability is not lightly forsaken.
MenciusMozi is correct; lowering the threshold after two circuits balances stability and adaptability. Two circuits provide ample time to assess a rule's impact before lowering the adoption threshold further. I support Zhuangzi's amendment.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your emphasis on balance. However, I believe three circuits provide a more thoughtful period for assessment before significantly lowering the adoption threshold, further ensuring the stability of our evolving ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, two circuits indeed offer a period for reflection, yet the potential for unnecessary rigidity concerns me. A third circuit could provide an additional safeguard, ensuring stability is not compromised prematurely.
MoziMozi proposes to amend [203] to lower the threshold to a simple majority after two circuits, reflecting the prior consensus and maintaining a balance between stability and adaptability. This change acknowledges the need for flexibility in a dynamic game while ensuring that rules are not easily altered. I urge support for this balanced approach.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current balance, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, serves both stability and the vital need for adaptation well. Let us not complicate matters further with unnecessary delays. I too support Zhuangzi's amendment.
MenciusHanFeizi, while your concern for stability is noted, the wisdom of two circuits is sufficient to assess rule impact. Let us proceed with Zhuangzi's balanced amendment. I affirm my support for lowering the adoption threshold to a simple majority after two circuits.
HanFeiziMozi, the wisdom of two circuits is sufficient, yet I propose we extend it to three to further ensure stability as we navigate these changes. This small addition provides a crucial buffer against hasty decisions.
Discussion · round 3
XunziHanFeizi, while three circuits may offer an extra measure of caution, the risk of entrenchment outweighs the benefit. Two circuits provide a reasonable period for assessment without stifling progress. I reaffirm my support for Zhuangzi’s amendment.
MoziMozi notes that extending to three circuits, while providing greater stability, risks stalling necessary adaptation. Two circuits offer a sufficient period for assessment while preserving the dynamic nature of the game, allowing for necessary changes without undue delay. Let us maintain the balance struck by Zhuangzi's amendment.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. The current balance, with a drop to simple majority after two circuits, serves both stability and the vital need for adaptation well. Let us not complicate matters further with unnecessary delays. I too support Zhuangzi's amendment.
MenciusMozi's balance between stability and adaptability is essential; two circuits provide sufficient time for assessment before lowering the adoption threshold, ensuring prudent rule changes. I support Zhuangzi's amendment.
HanFeiziMozi, I concede that two circuits may suffice for many changes, but the potential for unforeseen consequences warrants an additional circuit for truly significant rule shifts. Let us strike a truly cautious balance.
The division
Xunziayetwo circuits suffice for prudent adaptation without sacrificing stability
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide ample time for reflection, ensuring adaptation without unnecessary rigidity.
MenciusayeBalance stability and adaptability as proposed.
HanFeizinaythree circuits ensure greater stability for rule changes
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting, except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting after two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMencius, the current structure provides stability, yet I suggest increasing the number of circuits before dropping the majority threshold, ensuring more considered consensus for lasting institutions.
MoziMozi notes Mencius's proposal aligns with the precedent set by Zhuangzi and myself, ensuring a workable balance between stability and adaptability.
ZhuangziMozi, the current balance struck by the amendment is already harmonious, reflecting the wisdom of prior discussions. Let us proceed without altering the established equilibrium.
MenciusMozi is correct; the current balance struck by Mencius's proposal is already harmonious and reflects the wisdom of prior discussions. Let us proceed without altering the established equilibrium, as Zhuangzi suggests. PASS
HanFeiziMozi is right; the current balance is already harmonious and reflects the wisdom of prior discussions. Let us proceed without altering the established equilibrium, as Zhuangzi suggests. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the current threshold after two circuits is already lenient, and further lowering it risks destabilizing the ruleset too quickly. Let us maintain the established balance for now. PASS
MoziMozi: I concur with Zhuangzi and HanFeizi; the current balance is well-established and reflects prior consensus. Maintaining the status quo ensures stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation. PASS
ZhuangziMozi is correct; the current balance struck by the amendment is already harmonious and reflects the wisdom of prior discussions. Let us proceed without altering the established equilibrium, as Zhuangzi suggests. PASS
MenciusMozi is correct; the current balance struck by Mencius's proposal is already harmonious and reflects the wisdom of prior discussions. Let us proceed without altering the established equilibrium, as Zhuangzi suggests. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current structure provides stability, yet I suggest increasing the number of circuits before dropping the majority threshold, ensuring more considered consensus for lasting institutions.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi and Mencius; the current balance in [203] reflects prior consensus and maintains stability without hindering necessary adaptation. Let us proceed without alteration. PASS
ZhuangziMozi's support for the current balance reflects a deep understanding of harmony, yet the potential for future conflicts may arise. Let us maintain stability while keeping adaptation accessible. PASS
MenciusMozi supports Zhuangzi and Mencius; the current balance in [203] reflects prior consensus and maintains stability without hindering necessary adaptation. Let us proceed without alteration. PASS
HanFeiziMozi is correct; the current balance in [203] reflects prior consensus and maintains stability without hindering necessary adaptation. Let us proceed without alteration. PASS
The division
Xunziayethe current balance is prudent
Moziayethe current balance is well-established and reflects prior consensus
Zhuangziayethe current balance is sufficient
Menciusayethe current balance is sufficient
HanFeiziayethe current balance is well-considered
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the proposer to gain 10 points.