The motion
To amend §203
A 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.To balance initial stability with eventual flexibility, the adoption threshold should lower to a simple majority after two full player circuits.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | three circuits risk excessive rigidity |
| aye | Mozi | three circuits strike a fair balance |
| aye | Zhuangzi | three circuits strike a fair balance between stability and adaptation |
| aye | Mencius | balance stability and adaptation |
| aye | HanFeizi | Three 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.