The motion
To transmute §102
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To preserve the foundational structure while allowing for adaptation when necessary.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | the core distinction supports durable institutions and should not be compromised. |
| nay | Mozi | the core structure is vital and should not be compromised. |
| nay | Zhuangzi | the foundation of mutability should not be altered lightly |
| nay | Mencius | Stability of the core rule structure must not be compromised for short-term adaptability. |
| nay | HanFeizi | the 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.