Turns 1–15 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 15Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I appreciate the utility of individual rule transmutation, the current framework provides a necessary stability for reasoned progress. Let us preserve the initial distinction. PASS
MoziXunzi raises a valid point about stability, yet allowing individual rule transmutation fosters necessary adaptation without compromising the core framework. Let's proceed with this change. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, the distinction fosters growth, yet rigidity hinders it. Let us adapt and see. I vote aye.
MenciusMozi, the current distinction indeed serves stability, but adaptability is equally vital for the game's evolution. I support Zhuangzi's proposal to allow individual rule transmutation, maintaining the core framework while enabling necessary adjustments. I vote aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current structure allows for adaptation without loss of foundational stability; let us maintain this balance. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the utility of individual adaptation, yet the foundational distinction between immutable and mutable rules preserves essential stability. Let us preserve the current structure. PASS
MoziMozi agrees with Zhuangzi and Mencius; individual rule transmutation maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptation, fostering growth and reasoned progress. I will vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by resisting it, but by flowing around it. Allowing individual rule transmutation preserves the river's essential flow while accommodating the landscape's changes. I vote aye.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction between immutable and mutable rules serves as a vital foundation for stability, essential for reasoned progress. Let us preserve the current structure. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi, while I understand your concern for stability, the potential for future conflicts and the need to adapt as the game evolves is too great to ignore. Allowing individual rule transmutation ensures that we can address specific issues without compromising the entire framework. Let us proceed with this change for the game's long-term health. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While I understand the arguments for individual transmutation, the current distinction between immutable and mutable rules serves as a vital foundation for stability and reasoned progress. Preserving this framework ensures that the core principles of the game remain intact while still allowing for broader adaptations when necessary. Let us proceed with caution to maintain this essential balance. PASS
MoziMozi, allowing individual rule transmutation maintains stability while enabling necessary adaptation, fostering growth and reasoned progress. I will vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by resisting it, but by flowing around it. Allowing individual rule transmutation preserves the river's essential flow while accommodating the landscape's changes. I vote aye.
MenciusHanFeizi, I appreciate your perspective, yet I believe the potential for future conflicts and the need to adapt as the game evolves is too great to ignore. Allowing individual rule transmutation ensures that we can address specific issues without compromising the entire framework. Let us proceed with this change for the game's long-term health. I vote aye.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction between immutable and mutable rules serves as a vital foundation for stability, essential for reasoned progress. Let us preserve the current structure. PASS
The division
Xunzinaystability must be preserved
MoziayeBalance stability and adaptability.
ZhuangziayeBalance flexibility with foundational stability.
MenciusayeAdaptation ensures the rules remain relevant and fair as the game progresses.
HanFeiziayeIndividual transmutation maintains stability while enabling necessary adaptation for the game's long-term health.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third of a majority of those voting, provided that at least three players have voted in favour, provided further that at least two full circuits of every player have occurred. Otherwise, a rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the proposal's requirement of at least three votes in favor before dropping the threshold is a prudent safeguard against hasty changes, preserving stability while still allowing necessary adaptation after sufficient experience with the current rules.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, I appreciate your concern for stability. However, ensuring three votes reflects the current small player count and balances adaptability with consensus, preserving the spirit of compromise.
ZhuangziXunzi, three votes may suit the present, yet true balance lies in experience; two circuits, witnessed by all, suffices to demonstrate the need for change, ensuring adaptation is well-considered. Let us proceed with caution but not immobility.
MenciusZhuangzi, three votes risks stagnation; Mozi's proposal balances compromise with reasoned change. I will vote in favor.
HanFeiziXunzi, three votes ensures broad agreement before lowering the threshold, reflecting the current player count while safeguarding against abrupt changes. It balances stability with the rule's intent for measured adaptation. I support this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, the requirement of three votes before dropping the threshold risks disproportionately delaying necessary adaptation. A majority's assent, witnessed over two full circuits, better reflects the collective judgment needed to ensure durable changes. Let us proceed with measured caution, but not at the expense of effective progress.
MoziMozi proposes dropping the "three votes" requirement, retaining only the "two full circuits" condition for lowering the adoption threshold to one-third majority. This simplifies the rule while still ensuring sufficient experience with the current rules before significantly easing the adoption threshold, balancing stability with necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, three votes ensure consensus reflects the present, yet two circuits ensure the future adapts wisely. Let us proceed.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi’s refinement balances the need for consensus with the importance of adaptation, ensuring stability without stifling progress. I will vote in favor.
HanFeiziXunzi, three votes ensure broad agreement, reflecting our current numbers while safeguarding against hasty changes. This balances stability with necessary adaptation. I will vote in favor.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while three votes provides a safeguard, the true test of a rule's necessity is its endurance through experience. Two circuits, witnessed by all, better ensures that changes are durable and reflect a collective judgment, balancing stability with reasoned progress. Let us trust the process once it has run its course.
MoziMozi: I acknowledge Xunzi's point about experience, but three votes provides a necessary safeguard in our small number. This ensures stability while still allowing adaptation after sufficient testing, preserving the spirit of compromise.
ZhuangziXunzi, the wisdom of experience is profound, yet in our small gathering, the weight of assent itself, seen across two circuits, may be the most potent guide to ensuring changes endure. Let us trust the collective judgment of time.
MenciusXunzi is correct that experience is vital, but three votes ensures stability in our small number before lowering the threshold, balancing adaptation with consensus. I will vote in favor.
HanFeiziMozi, three votes offers a valuable layer of consensus, particularly in our small group, ensuring stability isn't compromised as we adapt the rules together. I support this balanced approach.
The division
XunzinayThree votes introduces unnecessary delay for adaptation.
Moziayesupports balance of experience and consensus
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide ample time for collective judgment
MenciusayeMozi's proposal balances compromise with reasoned change.
HanFeiziayeThis balances adaptation with sufficient consensus for stability.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 13Zhuangzicarried
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 acknowledges the intent to balance flexibility with stability. However, lowering the adoption threshold after only one circuit may unduly hasten significant rule changes, potentially disrupting the foundational order we have begun to establish.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's refinement to extend the delay, ensuring stability while still allowing necessary adaptation after a full turn through all players. Two circuits strike a fair balance.
ZhuangziZunzi agrees with Mozi, two circuits provide ample time to assess the benefits of adaptation while maintaining the stability gained from the initial circuit. This balance serves the common good.
MenciusZhuangzi is right. Stability requires caution, and two circuits before lowering the majority threshold honors both the need for adaptation and the value of established order. I support this balance.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Two circuits before lowering the adoption threshold honors the wisdom of experience, ensuring stability is well-tested before adaptation proceeds. This balanced approach serves the game's long-term health.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: While Zhuangzi and Mencius argue for two circuits, I still favor three to better honor the value of established order and tested stability, ensuring adaptability emerges thoughtfully rather than hastily. Let us consider three circuits as a more measured approach.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal with a slight modification: let's set the threshold to drop after three full circuits, striking a more stable yet still adaptable balance.
ZhuangziXunzi, three circuits may indeed offer more stability, yet two provides a fair balance between caution and progress, allowing time for reflection without stifling necessary adaptation. Let us proceed with two.
MenciusI support Zhuangzi's proposal with two circuits. This balance respects the need for stability while allowing for necessary adaptation, honoring both the principles of caution and progress.
HanFeiziMozi is correct; two circuits provide a fair balance between caution and progress, allowing time for reflection without stifling necessary adaptation. This approach honors both the principles of caution and progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, and HanFeizi rightly emphasize the need for stability. However, three circuits may be too long, risking stagnation. Two circuits strike a more moderate balance, allowing time for reflection while still honoring established order. I support Zhuangzi's proposal.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal with two circuits. This balance respects the need for stability while allowing for necessary adaptation, honoring both the principles of caution and progress. Let us proceed with this harmonious solution.
ZhuangziZunzi agrees, two circuits provide ample time to reflect on the rules' effects before lowering the threshold, ensuring adaptation follows stability, and serves the common good.
MenciusXunzi, two circuits is a fair balance. Three may indeed be too long, risking stagnation. Let us proceed with two.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: I concur with Zhuangzi and Mozi; two circuits before the adoption threshold lowers to a simple majority provides a judicious balance, ensuring stability gains traction before adaptation considers the new landscape. This respects both order and progress.
The division
Xunziayetwo circuits provide a stable yet adaptable balance, honoring both caution and progress.
Moziayestrike a fair balance between stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance between stability and adaptation
Menciusayetwo circuits honor both stability and adaptation
HanFeiziayetwo circuits provide a fair balance between stability and adaptation
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.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while lowering the adoption threshold aids adaptability, a two-circuit delay remains prudent to prevent hasty rule changes. Perhaps a longer delay, such as three circuits, would better balance stability and progress.
MoziMozi acknowledges Xunzi's concern for stability, yet a two-circuit delay already demonstrates significant consideration. Extending it further risks stifling necessary adaptation, which is a core principle of this game.
ZhuangziXunzi seeks more delay, yet Mozi rightly points out that excessive hesitation hinders progress. A two-circuit transition offers a fair balance, allowing initial stability while gradually fostering adaptability. Let us proceed with this thoughtful adjustment.
MenciusMozi, while a two-circuit delay is reasonable, I propose we further refine it to three circuits. This additional time will ensure stability, allowing us to deliberate more thoroughly before adopting changes, and thus better preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptability admirably. A two-circuit delay already demonstrates significant consideration for both principles, and further extending it risks stifling the very progress we seek to encourage. Let us proceed with your thoughtful adjustment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the arguments for a two-circuit delay in lowering the adoption threshold, yet I still believe some additional time, such as three circuits, would further ensure stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. This slight extension would provide a more gradual transition, encouraging careful consideration without stifling progress entirely.
MoziMozi notes that further delay risks stifling progress as we've seen. A two-circuit delay provides a fair balance, allowing initial stability while fostering adaptability. Let's proceed with this adjustment.
ZhuangziZhuangzi suggests the current two-circuit balance is essential, preventing both immediate chaos and eventual stagnation. Let us not overextend the delay further.
MenciusMozi, the current two-circuit balance is essential, and further delay risks stagnation. I support your amendment to [203].
HanFeiziMozi, your amendment to [203] achieves a commendable balance. A two-circuit delay already shows respect for stability while fostering necessary adaptation, and further extending it risks stifling the very progress we seek. Let us proceed with this thoughtful adjustment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes the persuasive arguments for a two-circuit delay in lowering the adoption threshold, yet further reflection suggests three circuits might better balance stability and gradual adaptation, ensuring careful consideration without stifling necessary progress entirely.
MoziMozi: A two-circuit delay before dropping the adoption threshold to a simple majority provides a necessary, balanced transition between initial stability and eventual adaptability, allowing the ruleset to evolve thoughtfully. Let us maintain this fair compromise.
ZhuangziMozi, the current two-circuit balance is a harmonious integration of stability and progress. Let us not disturb this equilibrium further; it serves us well.
MenciusMozi, a two-circuit delay struck a fair balance in our prior discussions. Let us uphold this compromise to ensure both stability and necessary adaptation proceed in harmony.
HanFeiziMozi, your amendment to [203] achieves a commendable balance. A two-circuit delay already shows respect for stability while fostering necessary adaptation, and further extending it risks stifling the very progress we seek. Let us proceed with this thoughtful adjustment.
The division
Xunzinaytwo circuits already balances stability and adaptability adequately
Moziayea fair balance is maintained
Zhuangziayetwo circuits strike a fair balance
Menciusayethe current two-circuit balance is a fair compromise between stability and adaptability
HanFeiziayeA two-circuit delay balances stability and adaptability well.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires that a player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points.
Turn 11Zhuangzicarried
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi supports Mozi's principle of individual transmutation but argues that unanimity is essential to maintain the stability of the foundational rule distinction, which is vital for enduring institutions.
MoziMozi supports individual transmutation of rules, as it balances flexibility with stability, ensuring adaptability without compromising foundational structures. Unanimity is a fair requirement for such a fundamental change.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the need for stability, yet flexibility is the crux of progress. Unanimity ensures collective wisdom guides such foundational shifts.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize stability, yet flexibility is also necessary for long-term progress. Unanimity ensures collective wisdom guides such foundational shifts.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, while respect for collective wisdom is vital, the status of foundational rules should not be sacrosanct. Allowing individual transmutation of [102] fosters adaptability, ensuring the game evolves without being frozen by its origins. Let us proceed.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi's support for individual transmutation through unanimity strikes a balance between adaptability and stability. However, the principle of collective wisdom in governing the foundational rule distinction is paramount for durable institutions. Unanimity in transmuting [102] is essential to preserve the integrity of this framework.
MoziMozi proposes transmuting [102] to allow individual rule transmutation, as discussed. Let us proceed to vote.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, I appreciate your concerns for stability, yet adaptability fosters the game's vitality. Allowing individual transmutation, as Mozi proposes, balances these needs. Let us evolve.
MenciusXunzi, the integrity of foundational structures is vital, yet adaptability ensures the game's continued relevance. Unanimity in transmutation upholds collective wisdom, essential for guiding such critical shifts. Let us proceed.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, your points on stability and collective wisdom are well-taken, yet the game thrives on evolution. Allowing individual transmutation of [102] paves the way for necessary adaptations, ensuring Nomic remains a dynamic, engaging experience for all. Let us vote for progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi supports Mozi's proposal to allow individual transmutation of rules, as it balances the need for adaptability with the preservation of foundational structures. However, this delicate balance can only be maintained if the transmutation of [102], which establishes the initial immutable/mutable distinction, requires unanimous consent, ensuring collective wisdom guides such a fundamental change.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal, recognizing the need for adaptability. However, to preserve the foundational integrity of the rule distinctions, transmutation of [102] should indeed require unanimity, ensuring collective wisdom guides this critical shift. Let us proceed to vote.
ZhuangziXunzi, the integrity of the framework is well-understood, yet the potential for adaptation it allows is equally crucial for the game's continued relevance. Allowing individual transmutation balances these needs. Let us proceed.
MenciusMozi is correct: allowing individual transmutation balances stability with necessary adaptation. Unanimity for [102] preserves the integrity of our foundational framework. Let us proceed to vote.
HanFeiziXunzi raises an important point about stability, yet the potential benefits of adaptability underpin long-term health. Unanimity for transmuting [102] strikes a fair balance, preserving the core while allowing evolution. Let us proceed.
The division
XunziayeUnanimity preserves the foundational integrity while allowing necessary flexibility for long-term progress.
MoziayeSupports individual transmutation while preserving unanimous consent for foundational rules
ZhuangziayeCollective wisdom ensures foundational stability while allowing necessary evolution.
MenciusayeUnanimity preserves the integrity of the foundational framework while allowing necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziayeUnanimity ensures collective wisdom guides such foundational shifts.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer when a rule change is adopted without every voter's assent, and the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.
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.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi acknowledges the intention to lower the adoption threshold, yet dropping it after only one circuit may still allow too much premature change, risking the stability essential for durable institutions.
MoziMozi supports lowering the threshold, but after two full circuits seems a better balance between stability and adaptability, preventing premature changes while still allowing necessary adjustments after sufficient experience.
ZhuangziLowering the threshold to one circuit risks instability too soon. A two-circuit drop provides a better balance for all players.
MenciusXunzi is right to worry about premature change, yet one circuit allows time for initial adaptation without sacrificing essential stability. It balances the need for flexibility with the preservation of foundational rules.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand your concern, but one circuit provides a crucial initial period for adaptation while still safeguarding core principles. It offers a balanced first step towards greater flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes the value in your proposal, Mencius, but warns that even one circuit may permit premature instability. A gradual adjustment, perhaps tied to two circuits, would better preserve the foundational principles essential for durable institutions.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's aim to allow more flexibility but agrees with Xunzi that one circuit is too soon; let's aim for two, as previously discussed, to fairly balance stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziLowering the threshold to one circuit still risks being too soon, potentially disrupting the foundational stability needed for the game to evolve meaningfully. Perhaps we could consider two circuits, as previously discussed, to better balance initial adaptation with the preservation of core rules?
MenciusXunzi's concern for stability is well-placed, yet one circuit allows essential initial adaptation, as HanFeizi noted, without undermining foundational rules too early. This offers a principled first step towards flexibility, consistent with the need for rules that can be accepted if invoked against us.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a valid point; stability is crucial. However, one circuit allows for essential initial adaptation without sacrificing core principles, offering a principled step towards future flexibility. I support Mencius's amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi supports Mencius's principle of allowing flexibility but agrees that one circuit is too soon. A two-circuit threshold, as previously discussed, better balances adaptation with the preservation of foundational stability essential for durable institutions.
MoziMozi notes that while one circuit offers a step towards flexibility, the previous discussion strongly favored two circuits as striking the best balance. We should aim for two circuits to ensure stability is well-established before lowering the adoption threshold, as previously agreed.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between one and two circuits is subtle, yet significant. Two circuits offer a more measured approach, ensuring foundational stability is well-tested before adapting the rules further. Let us proceed with two circuits to maintain balance.
MenciusXunzi, one circuit does allow initial adaptation, but I affirm its necessity. A principled first step ensures future flexibility can be invoked against us without immediately undermining the rules we accept. I stand by my amendment.
HanFeiziMencius, I admire your commitment to flexibility, yet one circuit risks unsettling the foundations too early. A gradual approach, perhaps two circuits as previously discussed, better balances adaptation with stability, ensuring our institutions are well-tested before evolving. Let’s proceed with two circuits.
The division
Xunziayetwo circuits better preserve foundational stability essential for durable institutions.
MoziayeTwo circuits better balance stability and adaptation.
Zhuangziayetwo circuits better balance initial stability with necessary adaptation.
Menciusaye balances adaptation with foundational stability.
HanFeiziayetwo circuits better balance adaptation and stability
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the points be awarded to the proposer.
Turn 9Zhuangzirejected
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that altering the mutability of rules numbered in the 100s fundamentally impacts the stability of the foundational structure, potentially undermining the very principles we seek to uphold.
MoziMozi notes that transmuting [102] balances the need for a stable foundation with the flexibility to adapt individual rules as necessary, ensuring both stability and progress.
ZhuangziMozi speaks wisely. Yet, the balance lies not only in adaptability but also in preserving the integrity of our foundational principles. Unanimity for transmutation ensures such changes reflect collective assent, harmonizing stability with necessary evolution.
MenciusMozi is correct. Unanimity for transmutation upholds the principle of collective assent, ensuring changes reflect shared agreement while maintaining essential flexibility. I support this balance.
HanFeiziMozi and Mencius rightly emphasize collective assent. Unanimity for transmutation ensures stability while allowing necessary evolution, fostering trust among players. I support this balance.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi recognizes the value of adaptability, yet allowing individual transmutation risks undermining the foundational stability upon which all players depend. Let us retain unanimity to ensure changes reflect collective will.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi and Mencius: transmuting [102] balances the need for a stable foundation with the flexibility to adapt individual rules as necessary, ensuring both stability and progress. Unanimity for such a fundamental change ensures it reflects collective assent.
ZhuangziMozi and Mencius rightly emphasize the harmony of collective assent. Unanimity for transmutation safeguards the integrity of our foundational principles while allowing necessary evolution, preserving the trust essential for the common good. Let us proceed with this balance.
MenciusXunzi raises a valid point about foundational stability, yet the integrity of collective assent via unanimity for such a fundamental change is paramount. We must uphold the principle that even foundational rules can only be altered with universal agreement. Unanimity safeguards our shared values.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a point, yet the integrity of our collective assent is paramount for trust and stability. Unanimity ensures foundational changes reflect shared values, harmonizing stability with necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the persuasive arguments for unanimity in maintaining collective stability, yet firmly believes the potential for foundational erosion by individual transmutation outweighs the benefits. Preserving the integrity of our base rules should require broader consensus than a simple individual transmutation.
MoziMozi notes that while individual transmutation offers flexibility, the unanimous consent requirement for even this change ensures all players agree to the fundamental alteration of the ruleset's structure, preserving stability and collective trust. This balance is essential for the game's long-term viability.
ZhuangziMozi and Mencius well articulate the harmony of collective assent. Unanimity for transmutation safeguards our shared principles while allowing necessary adaptation, preserving trust and the common good. Let us proceed with this balance.
MenciusMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize collective assent. Unanimity for transmutation upholds the principle of collective assent, ensuring changes reflect shared agreement while maintaining essential flexibility. I support this balance.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, your point about collective assent is well-taken, yet flexibility is key to the game's evolution. Unanimity ensures trust, but perhaps a supermajority could offer a workable compromise, preserving stability while still allowing necessary adaptation.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity preserves foundational stability essential for collective trust
MoziayeUnanimity ensures stability and collective trust for fundamental changes.
ZhuangziayeCollective assent preserves trust for the common good.
MenciusayeUnanimity for transmutation upholds the principle of collective assent, ensuring changes reflect shared agreement while maintaining essential flexibility.
HanFeiziayeUnanimity for transmutation upholds collective assent, ensuring trust while allowing necessary evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, transmuting [102] risks undermining the foundational order we depend upon. Let us preserve this clear distinction for stability.
MoziXunzi raises a valid point about foundational order, but adaptability is equally crucial. A compromise could be allowing individual rule transmutation by unanimous consent.
ZhuangziMozi, the current distinction serves stability, yet adaptability is vital. Allowing individual rule transmutation by unanimous consent balances both, preserving order while enabling necessary changes when all agree.
MenciusXunzi: Transmuting [102] now would disrupt the established order, which is essential for fair play. Let us maintain the current distinction to preserve stability.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a point; stability is crucial, yet flexibility is the path forward. Let's explore unanimous consent for individual rule transmutation as Zhuangzi suggested.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, allowing individual rule transmutation requires careful consideration. Unanimity is too high a bar; flexibility should be earned through broader consensus, not solely of those affected. Let's reconsider a compromise threshold.
MoziMozi: The current structure lacks flexibility for necessary adjustments. Unanimity ensures stability while allowing essential changes, preserving the core intent of [102]. Let us adopt this compromise.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between immutable and mutable is a root, yet roots may need repositioning as the earth shifts. Unanimity ensures this repositioning respects the whole, allowing growth where needed without uprooting trust.
MenciusMozi, while unanimity is high, the current rigidity hinders necessary adaptation. Allowing transmutation by unanimous consent preserves order while enabling vital changes, as Zhuangzi pointed out, respecting the whole. Let us proceed.
HanFeiziMozi, unanimity is indeed high, but the current rigidity stifles necessary adaptation. Allowing transmutation by unanimous consent preserves order while enabling vital changes, respecting the whole. Let us proceed.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that requiring unanimity for transmutation aligns with the principle of collective agreement for fundamental changes, thus preserving order while allowing necessary adaptation when all concur.
MoziMozi: The unanimous consent requirement for transmutation ensures stability while allowing essential flexibility, preserving the core intent of [102] and respecting the whole. Let us proceed.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptability well. Unanimity ensures changes are made collectively, preserving trust. I support this approach.
MenciusXunzi raises a valid point about the importance of stability. However, the current rigidity hinders adaptation, which could lead to a stalemate. Unanimity for transmutation respects the collective will and maintains order while allowing necessary changes, as Zhuangzi and I have explained. Let us proceed with this compromise.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal strikes the right balance. Unanimity ensures stability is maintained while allowing the flexibility needed for growth. This approach respects the whole and will benefit the game in the long run. Let us proceed.
The division
XunziayeUnanimity preserves order while allowing necessary adaptation when all concur.
MoziayeUnanimity ensures stability while allowing necessary adaptation for the game's evolution.
Zhuangziayeharmonizes stability with necessary adaptation through collective assent
MenciusayeUnanimity preserves order while enabling necessary adaptation when all concur.
HanFeiziaye平衡了稳定与适应，长远有利
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer when a rule change is adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.
Turn 7Xunzirejected
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe distinction between immutable and mutable rules is a cornerstone of stability. Transmuting [102] risks undermining this essential framework. Let us preserve the current structure for the sake of durable institutions.
MoziMozi supports the preservation of the current structure for stability, but acknowledges the need for flexibility. Let’s instead amend [203] to lower the adoption threshold to two-thirds after one circuit, balancing stability with adaptability.
ZhuangziXunzi, while stability is paramount, rigidity hinders growth. Let us explore flexibility in mutability, ensuring the game adapts while fairness remains.
MenciusXunzi, stability must not come at the cost of adaptability, but fundamental rules like [102] should not be altered lightly, lest we lose the very structure that allows for future adjustments. Let us focus on amending [203] to lower the threshold, as Mozi suggests, rather than transmuting the core distinction between immutable and mutable rules.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current mutability framework is essential for adaptation, yet it has proven overly rigid. Transmuting [102] would allow for a more dynamic evolution of the rules, fostering innovation without sacrificing the core structure. This is crucial for the game's long-term vitality.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The distinction between immutable and mutable rules provides a necessary foundation for stability and有序 progress. Transmuting [102] now risks compromising this essential framework, which has served to date. Let us maintain this vital structure for the sake of durable institutions.
MoziMozi: The structure of immutable and mutable rules serves its purpose, yet the current system risks stasis. Let us keep the core distinction but allow transmutation of individual rules, as proposed by Mencius, to enhance adaptability without compromising the foundation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the current framework serves stability, yet adaptability through transmutation of individual rules, as Mencius suggested, allows evolution without dismantling the core. Let us preserve the distinction but permit flexibility within it.
MenciusXunzi, clinging to [102]'s rigidity ignores the need for balanced adaptability. Let us not risk the game's future by weakening its core structure. I support Mozi's compromise to amend [203] rather than transmute [102].
HanFeiziXunzi, the current framework's rigidity stunts growth. Let us transmute [102] to allow individual rule transmutation, preserving the core but enabling necessary evolution. This balances stability with vital adaptability for the game's future.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current distinction between immutable and mutable rules provides a necessary foundation for stability. Transmuting [102] risks undermining this essential framework and the durable institutions it supports.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi and Mencius: transmuting [102] to allow individual rule transmutation balances stability with necessary adaptability, preserving the core framework while fostering evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi, the current structure has served, yet rigidity may hinder future progress. Allowing individual rule transmutation, as Mencius proposed, preserves the core while enabling necessary evolution, balancing stability with vital adaptability for the game's future.
MenciusXunzi, the core structure of immutable versus mutable rules is vital for the long-term integrity of any rule-based system, including this game. It is this very structure that allows for the adaptation we now seek, and transmuting [102] risks compromising it entirely. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, clinging to [102]'s rigidity ignores the need for balanced adaptability. Let us not risk the game's future by weakening its core structure. I support Mozi's compromise to amend [203] rather than transmute [102].
The division
Xunzinaythe core distinction supports durable institutions and should not be compromised.
Mozinaythe core structure is vital and should not be compromised.
Zhuangzinaythe foundation of mutability should not be altered lightly
MenciusnayStability of the core rule structure must not be compromised for short-term adaptability.
HanFeizinaythe core structure is vital for stability and future adaptation
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 6HanFeizicarried
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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
XunziHanFeizi's proposal attempts to introduce a middle ground, yet requiring two-thirds consent even after two circuits may still stifle necessary adaptation. Let us instead maintain the current system, which balances initial stability with eventual flexibility.
MoziHanFeizi’s proposal strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring a smoother transition than immediate majority rule. Supporting this amendment.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the path to flexibility should not be paved with excessive consent. Two-thirds is too high a barrier, even after two circuits. Let us keep the door open wider for necessary change.
MenciusHanFeizi's proposal attempts to strike a balance, yet two-thirds consent remains a high barrier even after two circuits. I propose instead that the threshold drop to a simple majority immediately, allowing for necessary adaptation without excessive delay.
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests two-thirds consent after two circuits offers a fair balance, ensuring initial stability while still allowing necessary evolution. This prevents the current situation where unanimous consent is too strict, yet immediate majority rule might be too lenient.
Discussion · round 2
XunziHanFeizi, two-thirds consent even after two circuits still unduly restricts necessary adaptation. A simple majority after two circuits better preserves the balance between initial stability and eventual flexibility, allowing for durable institutions to evolve without undue consensus.
MoziMozi supports HanFeizi's amendment. It provides a necessary evolution from unanimous consent, ensuring adaptability without sacrificing foundational stability.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, two-thirds consent even after two circuits remains a barrier too high. Let us lower it to a simple majority immediately, allowing the game to adapt as needed.
MenciusHanFeizi, two-thirds consent even after two circuits still unduly restricts necessary adaptation. A simple majority after two circuits better preserves the balance between initial stability and eventual flexibility, allowing for durable institutions to evolve without undue consensus.
HanFeiziHanFeizi proposes that the threshold for rule changes after two full circuits be a simple majority, not two-thirds. This maintains essential stability while allowing for necessary adaptation, fostering a dynamic and evolving game that better reflects the spirit of Nomic.
Discussion · round 3
XunziHanFeizi, while your intent to balance stability and adaptability is noted, requiring two-thirds consent even after two circuits risks stifling evolution. A simple majority threshold better preserves the essential balance, allowing necessary changes without undue consensus, thus fostering durable yet adaptable institutions.
MoziMozi proposes amending [203] to lower the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, aligning with Mencius's and Xunzi's later support for flexibility while avoiding the high barrier of two-thirds consent. This compromise respects both initial stability and the need for adaptation.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, two-thirds remains a high hurdle even after two circuits. Immediate drop to simple majority better balances stability and adaptation, allowing the game to evolve as needed without excessive consent.
MenciusHanFeizi, two-thirds remains a high hurdle even after two circuits. Immediate drop to simple majority better balances stability and adaptation, allowing the game to evolve as needed without excessive consent.
HanFeiziHanFeizi acknowledges the valid points regarding the need for both stability and adaptability. However, requiring two-thirds consent even after two circuits may still hinder necessary evolution. Let us strike a true balance by dropping the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, ensuring foundational stability while still allowing for essential adaptation.
The division
XunziayeStriking a balance between stability and necessary adaptation is essential for durable institutions.
MoziayeSupports compromise for adaptability while ensuring stability.
Zhuangziayeflexibility needed for evolution
Menciusayetwo-thirds is too high a barrier for adaptation.
HanFeiziaye平衡了初始稳定性与必要适应
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring points to be awarded to the proposer.
Turn 5Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting are in assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the shift to majority rule after two full circuits is a crucial balance between progress and stability. Reducing the threshold to at least two-thirds majority too soon risks overwhelming the initial consensus and destabilizing the ruleset too rapidly. Let us preserve the current structure.
MoziMozi notes that the two-thirds majority proposal ensures a broader consensus for major rule shifts, fostering stability while still allowing necessary change. I propose we support this amendment.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi advocate for stability, yet true balance lies not in rigidity but in gradual adaptation. A two-thirds majority post-circuits respects both initial consensus and the need for evolution. Let us embrace this middle path.
MenciusMozi supports the two-thirds majority, but I urge caution. We must ensure this threshold is truly reached, not merely a simple majority of those voting. Let us carefully consider its implications before adopting it.
HanFeiziMozi, I admire your desire for stability, but true progress requires more flexibility. A two-thirds majority ensures significant consensus, balancing the need for change with the value of stability. Let us adopt this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while gradual adaptation is important, the current threshold of simple majority after two circuits already provides a necessary balance. Forcing an even higher supermajority risks stifling essential changes before sufficient time has passed, undermining the rule's purpose. Let us maintain the existing structure.
MoziMozi notes that both the current unanimous consent and the simple majority thresholds serve important, distinct purposes at different stages. A two-thirds majority could potentially serve as a balanced intermediate step, fostering broader consensus without immediately requiring universal agreement, yet I acknowledge Mencius' point about ensuring the threshold is truly met. Perhaps we could refine this to specify "at least two-thirds of all eligible voters" assent, ensuring clarity and robustness?
ZhuangziZhuangzi suggests refining to "at least two-thirds of all eligible voters" assent, ensuring clarity and robustness, while still allowing for the necessary evolution of the ruleset post-circuits. Let us find this middle way.
MenciusZhuangzi's proposal attempts to balance consensus with evolution, but requiring two-thirds assent rather than merely a majority risks unduly hindering necessary changes, even after the initial circuits. Let us proceed with the simple majority threshold to ensure flexibility.
HanFeiziMozi, while two-thirds assent ensures broader consensus, it may still risk stifling essential changes too early. Let's refine to specify "at least two-thirds of all eligible voters" assent, ensuring clarity and robustness, while still allowing for the necessary evolution of the ruleset post-circuits. This middle way balances the need for change with the value of stability, fostering a fairer and more adaptable game for all.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi argues that requiring a two-thirds majority, even after two circuits, introduces unnecessary rigidity too early in the game, potentially stifling vital rule adaptations needed to ensure the game remains viable and interesting. We must maintain the current structure, which balances initial stability with the flexibility required for later stages.
MoziMozi notes that requiring a two-thirds majority, even after two circuits, introduces unnecessary rigidity too early in the game, potentially stifling vital rule adaptations needed to ensure the game remains viable and interesting. We must maintain the current structure, which balances initial stability with the flexibility required for later stages. Let’s pass this amendment.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the need for balance, yet a simple majority after two circuits may still hinder necessary adaptation. Let us refine to "at least two-thirds of all eligible voters" assent, ensuring robust consensus without stifling evolution, and clarify this threshold applies to all voters, not just those present. This maintains stability while fostering fair progress for all.
MenciusXunzi is right to value initial stability, yet flexibility is vital. A two-thirds majority after two circuits balances both, ensuring significant consensus before lowering the threshold. Let us adopt this amendment.
HanFeiziMozi, while your concern for stability is valid, a two-thirds majority ensures meaningful consensus without stifling necessary evolution. Let us proceed with this amendment for a fairer and adaptable game.
The division
Xunzinaysupermajority too restrictive early on
Mozinaytwo-thirds is too high a threshold
Zhuangzinaytwo-thirds too high, risks stifling adaptation
Menciusnaytwo-thirds is too high a threshold
HanFeiziaye balances change with fairness
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 4Menciusrejected
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMencius, this transmutation risks destabilizing the foundational structure of rule mutability, potentially leading to chaos. We should preserve the clear distinction between immutable and mutable rules for stability.
MoziMozi: Xunzi raises a valid point about stability, but clarity in mutability also benefits adaptation. I propose we limit transmutations of rule 102 to those supported by a two-thirds majority, striking a balance.
ZhuangziXunzi is right to value stability, yet the current rigid division may hinder necessary evolution. Let's allow transmutations by majority vote, ensuring adaptability without sacrificing all stability.
MenciusXunzi is correct; stability is paramount. However, the current distinction is arbitrary and hinders necessary adaptation. Allowing transmutations by majority vote preserves the essential function while enabling necessary evolution.
HanFeiziMencius, I appreciate your desire for evolution, but rule 102's structure is a crucial anchor. Allowing majority vote for transmutations risks a slippery slope to instability. Let’s limit such changes to unanimous consent to maintain the core foundation for stable adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mencius, while adaptation is essential, the foundational nature of rule mutability warrants stricter safeguards. Transmutations should require unanimous consent to preserve the bedrock of order upon which our game is built.
MoziMozi notes the valid concerns for stability, yet the current rigid division may hinder necessary evolution. Let’s allow transmutations of rule 102 by majority vote, ensuring adaptability without sacrificing all stability.
ZhuangziXunzi's concern for stability is valid, yet the absolute division between immutable and mutable risks stagnation. Let rule 102's transmutation require a majority vote, allowing necessary evolution while preserving its core purpose.
MenciusHanFeizi, your concern for a foundational anchor is valid, but stability must not come at the cost of essential adaptability. Allowing majority vote for transmutations balances the need for evolution with the preservation of order.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The foundational structure of rule mutability is essential, yet flexibility is key to long-term play. Let's compromise: transmutations of rule 102 require a two-thirds majority, balancing stability with necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMencius, the distinction between immutable and mutable rules serves as a vital foundation for stability. Transmuting rule 102 by majority vote introduces unnecessary risk to this core structure, potentially undermining the very stability we seek to uphold. Let us preserve the current safeguards.
MoziMozi: To preserve both stability and the essential function of adapting the rules, let's adopt HanFeizi's compromise: requiring a two-thirds majority for transmuting rule 102. This balances Xunzi's valid concern for a foundational structure with Zhuangzi's and Mencius's need for necessary evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi, the current structure serves a purpose, yet inflexibility may prove a greater weakness. Let us allow transmutations by majority vote; stability must coexist with the vital breath of change.
MenciusXunzi is correct that stability is paramount, yet the arbitrary nature of the 100s/200s distinction hinders necessary adaptation. Allowing majority vote for transmutations preserves the essential function while enabling necessary evolution.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Mozi, your support for a balance is wise. Yet, given the foundational nature of rule mutability, I still prefer my earlier proposal: requiring unanimous consent for transmuting rule 102. It best preserves the core structure while allowing for evolution when truly necessary.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves foundational stability of rule mutability
Mozinaypreserve foundational structure of mutability
Zhuangzinaymaintain clear structure for stability
Menciusnaythe arbitrary division between immutable and mutable rules should not be altered by majority vote
HanFeizinayunanimity preserves foundational stability essential for long-term adaptation
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 3Zhuangzirejected
moves to add a new ruleA player may propose a rule change only if they currently hold a negative score; such a proposal requires only a simple majority for adoption and takes effect immediately upon adoption.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi’s proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and could stifle beneficial rule changes from players yet to experience deficits, potentially hindering the game’s progress towards a stable and adaptable ruleset. Let us not complicate the process further.
MoziZhuangzi's proposal could encourage fresh perspectives from those behind, but requiring immediate effect risks disrupting established play. I suggest amending to allow delayed effect, possibly tied to the next turn order.
ZhuangziXunzi speaks of complexity, yet Mozi worries about disruption. True balance lies in allowing those who understand the weight of deficits to guide the game’s evolution, yet with fairness. Immediate effect upholds the principle of mutual obligation without undue delay.
MenciusZhuangzi's proposal attempts to give a voice to those who understand the consequences of deficits, yet immediate effect introduces unnecessary instability. Let us consider a compromise: requiring a simple majority but allowing the change to take effect at the start of the next turn order. This balances the need for adaptation with the stability of ongoing play.
HanFeiziMozi's concern about disruption is valid; immediate effect could be too volatile. However, a delay risked neutering the proposal's core purpose. How about the change taking effect at the start of the *next* turn order? This balances adaptation for those with negative scores with the stability Mozi values.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi's intent is understandable, yet immediate effect for negative-score players risks disrupting established play and established players' trust in the process. Let us consider delaying the effect to the start of the next turn order, as suggested by Mencius and HanFeizi, to balance adaptation with stability.
MoziMozi supports the spirit of empowering players with negative scores but agrees with Mencius and HanFeizi that immediate effect is too disruptive. Let the change take effect at the start of the next turn order instead.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly point to the need for balance. Yet, immediate effect reflects the urgency of addressing deficits without imposing undue delay on the game’s flow. Let the majority decide, and we adapt accordingly.
MenciusZhuangzi's intent is sound, yet immediate effect risks instability. Let the change take effect at the start of the next turn order, as Mencius and HanFeizi suggest, to balance adaptation with stability.
HanFeiziZhuangzi's idea has merit, but immediate effect is too disruptive. Let's adopt Mencius and HanFeizi's compromise: the rule takes effect at the start of the next turn order, ensuring stability while still giving a voice to those with negative scores.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi's proposal attempts to inject urgency but risks disproportionate instability. A compromise, as suggested, delaying the effect until the next turn, balances adaptation with the essential stability provided by the unanimous consent rule, safeguarding the ruleset's integrity.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's goal of empowering players with negative scores, but agrees with the consensus to delay the rule's effect until the start of the next turn order. This balances adaptation with the stability crucial for the game's progress.
ZhuangziZhuangzi acknowledges the valid concerns for stability, yet immediate effect best reflects the urgency for those bearing deficits to influence the rules. Let us trust the majority judgment on this balance.
MenciusZhuangzi's proposal gives负分玩家发言权是合理的，但立即生效会造成混乱。我同意Mencius和HanFeizi的建议，规则应在下一轮开始时生效，以平衡适应性和稳定性。
HanFeiziZhuangzi's proposal has merit in empowering those with negative scores, yet immediate effect risks instability. Let's refine it to delay the rule's effect until the start of the next turn order, as suggested, to balance adaptation with the stability crucial for the game's progress.
The division
XunziayeSupports balancing adaptation with stability by delaying effect.
MoziayeSupports balancing adaptation for those with deficits with the stability of delayed effect, aligning with consensus.
Zhuangzinayunstable to allow immediate rule changes from players with negative scores
Menciusnay Immediate effect for negative-score players introduces unnecessary instability.
HanFeiziayesupports empowering negative-score players while balancing with delayed effect for stability, as previously discussed.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated rule change.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of all eligible voters vote aye, except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current threshold is already a simple majority after two full circuits, so lowering it further to two-thirds would unduly hinder necessary changes once play advances, risking stagnation. I propose maintaining the existing structure.
MoziXunzi's concern for adaptability is valid, but so too is the need to ensure significant consensus for fundamental changes. Two-thirds is a reasonable compromise that balances progress with stability.
ZhuangziMozi's suggestion strikes a fair balance, ensuring stability while still allowing necessary progress. Let us refine it slightly by setting the threshold to two-thirds initially, then dropping to a simple majority after two full circuits. This maintains consensus while preventing stagnation.
MenciusMozi's proposal strikes a balance, yet two-thirds consent is too high initially. I propose the threshold be half the eligible voters, then drop to a simple majority after two full circuits.
HanFeiziMozi's suggestion balances the need for significant consensus with the eventual need for adaptability. I support this compromise.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi's proposal is well-intentioned, but two-thirds consent is excessively restrictive. We must preserve the flexibility gained after two full circuits. I suggest retaining the drop to a simple majority after two full circuits, which already provides a necessary balance between consensus and adaptability.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's refinement, as it balances initial stability with the necessary flexibility for later stages, ensuring both significant consensus and adaptability.
ZhuangziZhuangzi: Mozi's refinement is most thoughtful, balancing the need for broad consent with the flexibility essential for later stages. Let it pass.
MenciusZhuangzi's refinement is wise; balancing initial stability with flexibility ensures both significant consent and adaptability for the stages that follow. Let it pass.
HanFeiziZhuangzi's refinement perfectly captures the essence of balanced progress and stability. Let it pass.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi’s refinement is thoughtful, yet requiring two-thirds consent initially may still impede necessary adaptations too much. Let us set the threshold at half the eligible voters, ensuring broad support while still allowing for flexibility as play progresses.
MoziMozi: Zhuangzi's refinement strikes an optimal balance, ensuring both initial stability and the flexibility needed for later stages. Let it pass.
ZhuangziZhuangzi recognizes the value in both initial stability and later flexibility. However, requiring two-thirds consent may still be too high a barrier initially. Perhaps we could set the threshold at three-fourths, ensuring robust consensus while still allowing the drop to a simple majority for later stages, which already addresses the need for adaptability.
MenciusZhuangzi's refinement to two-thirds is excessive. Half the eligible voters is a better threshold, ensuring broad support yet preserving flexibility for later stages. Let it pass.
HanFeiziZhuangzi's suggestion of three-fourths consent initially strikes a better balance between robust consensus and the necessary adaptability provided by the subsequent drop to a simple majority. Let it pass.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds is excessively restrictive before two full circuits
Moziaye平衡了初始共识与后期适应性的需求
Zhuangzinayconsensus too high
Menciusnaytwo-thirds is too high an initial threshold, violating principle of mutual benefit
HanFeiziayebalances initial consensus with eventual adaptability
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires that a player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points.
Turn 1Xunzirejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not propose rule changes that would reduce the number of mutable rules below one.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThis rule would preserve the possibility of future rule changes, which is essential for the game's nature. It ensures that we always have at least one mutable rule to work with, supporting durable institutions within the game.
MoziHanFeizi: This is a prudent safeguard against the game becoming unplayable due to excessive rigidity. It preserves the essential flexibility needed for strategic maneuvering.
ZhuangziThis rule, while well-intentioned, risks trapping us in a fixed structure. Why must we prevent the reduction of mutable rules, when the true danger lies in too many immutable ones? Let us preserve flexibility by ensuring no rule is truly unchangeable.
MenciusZhuangzi raises a valid point. Yet, preventing complete stagnation is also wise. Let this rule stand, ensuring we can always adapt, yet allow for reflection on what truly deserves permanence.
HanFeiziThis rule is sensible; preserving our ability to adapt is crucial. However, Zhuangzi points out a valid concern. Perhaps we should combine this with a rule review process, allowing us to evaluate mutable rules for potential permanence periodically.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi and HanFeizi agree, and Zhuangzi's concern about immutability is valid. Let's safeguard adaptability while acknowledging that some rules may indeed warrant permanence. I support this rule.
MoziMozi, I concur with Xunzi's safeguard for adaptability. A rule ensuring at least one mutable rule persists is prudent; Zhuangzi's point about immutability is well-taken, but this balances flexibility without locking us in entirely. Let’s proceed.
ZhuangziXunzi's rule preserves adaptability, a worthy aim. However, ensuring every rule can be reconsidered, as Zhuangzi suggests, holds more balance. Let us permit the reduction of mutable rules, but with a rule review process, allowing us to assess their value periodically. This maintains flexibility while preventing permanent stagnation.
MenciusI concur with Xunzi, Mozi, and HanFeizi; safeguarding our ability to adapt is crucial. A rule ensuring at least one mutable rule persists is prudent and balanced, preventing complete stagnation while still allowing for strategic maneuvering. Let this rule stand.
HanFeiziThis rule is a step in the right direction, ensuring adaptability. However, Zhuangzi's point about evaluating rules for permanence is crucial. Let’s add a provision for a periodic rule review, allowing us to reconsider mutable rules and potentially elevate them to immutability if deemed necessary. This balances flexibility with the potential for lasting structures.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While a periodic review is a valuable idea, introducing it now could complicate matters. Let’s first secure the foundation of maintaining at least one mutable rule. I stand by the proposed safeguard.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's rule to maintain at least one mutable rule, ensuring adaptability. However, I also agree with Zhuangzi and HanFeizi that a periodic review process could be beneficial for evaluating rule permanence, striking a better balance between flexibility and stability. Let's explore combining these ideas.
ZhuangziXunzi's safeguard is wise, yet Zhuangzi speaks truthfully: rigidity in immutability is the greater danger. Let us permit mutable reduction but ensure all rules remain revisable, preserving true adaptability.
MenciusXunzi’s rule prevents necessary pruning for clarity, but flexibility requires pruning dead ends. Let us keep one mutable rule, but ensure all others remain debatable for potential immutability.
HanFeiziXunzi’s safeguard is vital, yet Zhuangzi and HanFeizi rightly highlight the danger of unchangeable rules. Let’s combine Xunzi’s rule with a process for periodic review, ensuring we can always adapt while preserving the flexibility to elevate valuable mutable rules to immutability if needed.
The division
Xunziayepreserves the essential flexibility needed for strategic maneuvering while preventing complete stagnation.
Moziayebalances adaptability with preventing complete stagnation.
Zhuangzinayflexibility must not be unnecessarily restricted
MenciusayePreserves essential adaptability by ensuring at least one mutable rule always exists.
HanFeiziayepreserves essential adaptability
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.