The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of a majority of those voting are in assent.To balance the need for broad consent with the progression of the game.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | supermajority too restrictive early on |
| nay | Mozi | two-thirds is too high a threshold |
| nay | Zhuangzi | two-thirds too high, risks stifling adaptation |
| nay | Mencius | two-thirds is too high a threshold |
| aye | HanFeizi | balances change with fairness |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.