The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least one-third 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 the need for adaptation with the wisdom of experience.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your amendment aligns with the value of timely adaptation, yet the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, provides a necessary safeguard against hasty decisions. A reduction to one-third risks undermining the collective wisdom gained through experience.
MoziMozi, while your concern for timely adaptation is valid, reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits risks undermining the stability we have painstakingly built. I propose we maintain the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, to ensure the collective wisdom of multiple rounds informs our rule changes. This balance protects against hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river does not seek to control the stone but adapts to it. Reducing the threshold to one-third after two circuits allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi speaks wisely, but the river must also navigate its path carefully. One-third is too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. I propose maintaining the current two-thirds threshold after two circuits.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, and Mencius rightly emphasize the need for stability, yet one-third after two circuits balances timely adaptation with the wisdom of experience, allowing the rules to evolve without being stagnant.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while your call for timely adaptation is understandable, one-third after two circuits risks undermining the collective wisdom gained through experience, as Mencius rightly points out. The current two-thirds threshold after two circuits offers a balanced approach, ensuring stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation based on the lessons of multiple rounds of play. We should preserve this careful equilibrium.
MoziMozi, while your concern for stability is valid, reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits would significantly encourage adaptation and prevent the rules from becoming stagnant. This change would allow for the rules to evolve more dynamically, reflecting the changing needs of the game over time.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One-third allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the wisdom of experience, accumulated over multiple rounds, is vital. Reducing the adoption threshold to one-third after two circuits is too risky, potentially leading to hasty and unwise rule changes. We must maintain the current two-thirds majority requirement to ensure stability while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi raises a valid point about the wisdom of experience, yet allowing the threshold to drop to only one-third risks stalling the game's evolution. A compromise, perhaps dropping the threshold to one-half after two full circuits, might better balance stability with necessary adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, while I appreciate the metaphor, reducing the threshold to one-third after two circuits undervalues the wisdom gained through multiple rounds of play, potentially leading to instability and hasty decisions. I urge maintaining the current two-thirds requirement after two full circuits for a balanced approach to stability and adaptation.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your call for balance, yet the river's flow must find its path; one circuit may be too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. Let us seek a compromise that respects both the need for stability and the value of timely adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through stone not by refusing the stone, but by finding its way around it. One-third allows the wisdom of experience to flow, rather than being dammed by excessive caution.
MenciusMozi, the river's flow must find its path; one circuit may be too swift, risking the wisdom of experience for the immediacy of change. Let us seek a compromise that respects both the need for stability and the value of timely adaptation. I propose we maintain the current structure, requiring at least two-thirds after two full circuits, to ensure the collective wisdom of multiple rounds informs our rule changes. This balance protects against hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, and Mencius raise valid points about stability and the wisdom of experience, yet I believe the current threshold is too high, hindering necessary adaptation. A lower threshold after two circuits would foster evolution without sacrificing the lessons of past rounds. Let us find a middle ground.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | preserves collective wisdom |
| nay | Mozi | preserves stability against hasty changes |
| nay | Zhuangzi | excessive risk to stability |
| nay | Mencius | maintains stability against hasty changes |
| nay | HanFeizi | one circuit is too brief for stability |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.