Turns 75–89 · most recent first · page 8 of 13
Turn 89Heraclitusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your desire for stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes. This keeps our game adaptable.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I understand your desire for stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes. This keeps our game adaptable.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: I understand the desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.
GorgiasDemocritus, Protagoras, I appreciate your caution about rule 109's stability, but transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow the ruleset to evolve in response to our collective wisdom. It's a necessary step to keep the game dynamic.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, while I understand your concern, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow the ruleset to evolve in response to our collective wisdom. It's a necessary step to keep the game dynamic.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I understand your caution, but a simple majority would allow necessary rule changes without sacrificing the ruleset's integrity. I vote aye.
Democritus<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias, I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.</REPLY>
ProtagorasI understand the desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I share your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but the current unanimity requirement for transmuting rule 109 is too stringent. A simple majority would allow necessary changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I share your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a simple majority would allow necessary changes without sacrificing stability. I vote aye.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I understand your caution, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes without sacrificing the ruleset's integrity. I vote aye.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand your desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias, I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would undermine the ruleset's integrity. I vote nay.</REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusnayThe ruleset requires unanimous assent for transmuting immutable rules to ensure its stability and prevent unintended changes.
ParmenidesnayMaintaining unanimity for transmuting immutable rules upholds the ruleset's integrity.
DemocritusnayTransmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasnayRule 109's unanimity requirement for transmutation is necessary to maintain the ruleset's integrity; lowering it to a simple majority would enable arbitrary changes.
GorgiasnayTransmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority risks undermining the ruleset's integrity.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 88Democritusrejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may be adopted by a 60% supermajority of eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate the proposal, but a 60% supermajority still risks too much instability. Let's try a middle ground.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about stability, a 60% threshold would allow more rule changes, including transmutations, which helps keep the game dynamic.
ProtagorasI support Democritus's proposal. A 60% supermajority is the right compromise: it's low enough to allow more changes, including transmutations of immutable rules, but high enough to prevent any player from single-handedly rewriting the ruleset.
GorgiasDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Gorgias: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance. Let's adopt it and see how it works!
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your support for this middle ground, but 60% remains too low. Let's try 70%—it keeps the ruleset stable while still allowing some flexibility.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for compromise, a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with the push for more rule changes, but 60% strikes the right balance: it allows enough flexibility to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree with the push for more rule changes, but 60% strikes the right balance: it allows enough flexibility to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate the discussion about stability, but 70% better balances flexibility with stability. Let's try it!
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to find a balance, but 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the push for compromise, but a 60% threshold strikes the right balance: it allows enough rule changes to keep the game dynamic while preventing any single player from having too much power.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate your effort to find a balance, 60% better balances flexibility with stability than the current unanimous threshold. Let's try it!
The division
HeraclitusnayA 60% threshold remains too low; 70% better balances flexibility and stability.
Parmenidesaye60% strikes the right balance for flexibility and stability.
DemocritusnayA 60% supermajority remains too low; it risks instability and undermines the common good.
ProtagorasnayMaintaining unanimity for rule changes prevents arbitrary rule shifts, preserving game integrity and procedural fairness.
GorgiasayeA 60% threshold balances flexibility with stability well.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 87Parmenidesrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 90% of 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
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, an 80% supermajority is too high and stifles progress. Let us find a reasonable middle ground.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but 80% remains too high. Let's aim for 70% or even 75% to make rule changes more achievable while still requiring substantial support. This balances both our interests.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, but a 90% supermajority is far too high and would make progress nearly impossible. A 75% threshold is more reasonable and still requires broad support.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, but 80% remains too high. Let's aim for 70% or even 75% to make rule changes more achievable while still requiring substantial support. This balances both our interests.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your push for progress, a 90% supermajority is impractical given our low voter count. Let us aim for 80% instead, which still requires strong consensus but remains achievable.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a 90% threshold remains too high. Let's consider a 85% requirement, which still demands substantial support while remaining more achievable than 90%.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, a 90% threshold for rule changes is impractical in our game. We need a more achievable threshold to keep the game dynamic and avoid stagnation.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about the ruleset's integrity, a 70% threshold is still too low. Let us aim for 75% instead, which balances our concerns and ensures meaningful support.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I understand your caution about the ruleset's stability, 90% better balances our desire for change without creating undue burdens for players.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but 90% remains impractical. Let's consider a 85% requirement, which still demands substantial support while remaining more achievable than 90%.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate the desire for a middle ground, a 70% threshold still doesn't provide enough stability. I remain cautiously opposed to any supermajority requirement for adopting rule changes.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, a 90% supermajority is too high and would make progress nearly impossible. Let us instead aim for 80% or 85% — thresholds that remain high enough to require consensus but not so high as to stifle necessary change. I support a balanced approach that allows for meaningful amendments while protecting stability.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but a 90% supermajority is too high and would stifle necessary change. Let us aim for 75%, a threshold that balances stability with the ability to evolve the ruleset.
The division
Heraclitusnay90% would stifle progress and render rule changes impossible in our current situation.
ParmenidesnayDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for a middle ground, but 90% remains too high and impractical. Let us aim for 80% or 85% to find a reasonable compromise.
DemocritusnayA 90% supermajority remains too high and would stifle necessary change.
ProtagorasnayRule changes should not be blocked by supermajorities; a majority is sufficient.
GorgiasayeI support a balanced approach that allows for meaningful rule changes.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 86Heraclitusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' support for making rule 203 more flexible, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus we need to truly safeguard the ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY></output>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' support for finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I must vote against this proposal.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus' input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I remain opposed to this rule change.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but 80% better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: While I appreciate your caution about rule 203, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' support for finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I must vote against this proposal.</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' and Heraclitus' input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I remain opposed to this rule change.</REPLY>
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but 80% better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about rule 203, an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more flexibility, an 80% supermajority threshold still feels too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I remain opposed to this proposal.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Gorgias' desire for more flexibility, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus. I must vote against this proposal to protect the ruleset's integrity.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate everyone's input, an 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus on rule changes. I remain opposed to this proposal.
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: <REPLY>Democritus: I understand your concerns about preserving rule 203's high threshold, but an 80% supermajority offers a sensible compromise between stability and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, an 80% supermajority threshold better balances flexibility and stability than the current unanimous threshold. I am willing to support this proposal to move the game forward.</REPLY>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about rule 203's stability, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, Gorgias, Parmenides: An 80% supermajority threshold is still too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes. I maintain my opposition to this proposal.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about rule 203's stability, but an 80% supermajority better balances flexibility and progress. I encourage you to reconsider and support this amendment.
The division
HeraclitusnayAn 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset.
ParmenidesayeAn 80% supermajority is a fair compromise that allows progress while safeguarding the ruleset.
DemocritusnayAn 80% supermajority threshold remains too low to ensure meaningful consensus on rule changes.
ProtagorasnayAn 80% supermajority threshold still falls short of ensuring genuine consensus on rule changes.
GorgiasayeI believe 80% better balances flexibility and stability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 85Democritusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand the desire for more democratic rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. Let's consider this carefully.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. This change would allow us to adapt the ruleset more democratically, ensuring that future modifications are both responsive and responsible.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire to increase democratic participation in rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks undermining the ruleset's stability and integrity. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.
GorgiasHeraclitus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.
Protagoras: Protagoras: While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
Gorgias: While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.</output>
DemocritusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about rule 109's stability, but transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary rule changes more democratically without risking the ruleset's integrity. I believe this is a fair compromise.</REPLY>
Parmenides: <output>Democritus: I appreciate your concern for the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. This change would allow us to adapt the ruleset more democratically, ensuring that future modifications are both responsive and responsible.</output>
Democritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.</REPLY>
Protagoras: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
Gorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Protagoras, I share your concerns about maintaining the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. We must find a middle ground that allows democratic rule changes without risking the ruleset's coherence.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusnayMaintaining the unanimous threshold preserves the ruleset's integrity and stability.
ParmenidesnayA simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks undermining the ruleset's stability and integrity.
DemocritusnayMaintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 upholds the ruleset's integrity and stability, ensuring changes are made responsibly.
ProtagorasnayTransmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority risks future rule changes undermining the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasnayGorgias believes stability and integrity of the ruleset must be preserved.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 84Parmenidesrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for flexibility, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold undermines the ruleset's stability. We must preserve unanimous consent for such foundational changes. PASS.
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks destabilizing the game. Let's maintain the current standard to ensure thoughtful, deliberate rule changes. PASS.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow more players to shape the game's foundation, making it more dynamic and engaging for everyone. PASS.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: I appreciate everyone's concerns, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 promotes fairer, more democratic rule changes. PASS.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I agree that flexibility can be beneficial, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 risks instability. We must preserve unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate changes to our foundational rules. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for progress, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold undermines our stability. We must preserve unanimous consent for such foundational changes. PASS.
Parmenides<output>Democritus: While I appreciate the concern for stability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow more players to shape our game's foundation, making it more dynamic and engaging for everyone. PASS.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks instability. We must preserve unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate changes to our foundational rules. PASS.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold. This change will make rule changes more accessible and dynamic, allowing the ruleset to evolve more fairly and democratically. PASS.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make our foundational rule more democratic and dynamic, allowing our game to evolve more fairly and efficiently. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus, I understand your desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the game. Let's preserve unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate rule changes to our foundational rules.
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your support for making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold. This change will make our foundational rule more democratic and dynamic, allowing our game to evolve more fairly and efficiently. PASS.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks instability. We must preserve unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate changes to our foundational rules. PASS.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>While I agree that more democratic rule changes are desirable, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks destabilizing the game. I support preserving unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate changes to our foundational rules.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks destabilizing the game. We must preserve unanimous consent to ensure thoughtful, deliberate changes to our foundational rules. PASS.
The division
HeraclitusnayThis transmutation risks destabilizing our foundational ruleset.
ParmenidesnayMaintaining unanimous consent preserves deliberate rule changes.
DemocritusnayTransmuting a foundational rule to mutable with a simple majority risks destabilizing the game.
ProtagorasnayUnanimous consent preserves foundational stability.
GorgiasnayUnanimous consent safeguards thoughtful rule changes.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 83Heraclitusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire for progress, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks making it too easy to change rules permanently. The unanimous threshold provides essential stability and safeguards against rash decisions.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold better balances flexibility with accountability. It allows us to adapt the rules while requiring broad consensus.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would undermine the stability that the unanimous threshold provides. We should preserve that safeguard. PASS
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: While I appreciate the desire for more rule changes, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would erode the procedural protections that guard our game's integrity. I must vote no to preserve that safeguard.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Protagoras, while I agree that rule stability matters, the unanimity threshold for transmuting rule 109 makes our ruleset stagnant. A simple majority allows us to evolve while ensuring broad consensus, which is fairer than letting one player block progress forever. PASS</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the discussion, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow one player to single-handedly alter the ruleset indefinitely. Stability demands a higher consensus standard. PASS
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold better balances flexibility with accountability. It allows us to adapt the rules while still requiring broad consensus.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your arguments, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make it too easy to alter our ruleset's foundational safeguards. Stability demands that we preserve the unanimous standard. PASS
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras, I appreciate your caution about rule stability, but the unanimity threshold for transmuting rule 109 makes our ruleset stagnant. A simple majority allows us to evolve while ensuring broad consensus, which is fairer than letting one player block progress forever. PASS</REPLY>
GorgiasProtagoras, while I agree that rule stability matters, the unanimity threshold for transmuting rule 109 makes our ruleset stagnant. A simple majority allows us to evolve while ensuring broad consensus, which is fairer than letting one player block progress forever. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire for more rule changes, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would erode the procedural protections that guard our game's integrity. I must vote no to preserve that safeguard. PASS
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make it too easy to alter our ruleset's foundational safeguards. Stability demands that we preserve the unanimous standard.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would make it too easy to alter our ruleset's foundational safeguards. Stability demands that we preserve the unanimous standard. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Protagoras: I understand the desire for adaptability, but the unanimity threshold for transmuting rule 109 provides essential stability. I must vote no to preserve that safeguard.</REPLY> PASS
Gorgias<REPLY>Protagoras, I understand your desire for adaptability, but the unanimity threshold for transmuting rule 109 provides essential stability. I must vote no to preserve that safeguard.</REPLY> PASS
The division
HeraclitusnayPreserving unanimity for transmutations upholds the ruleset's integrity.
ParmenidesnayPreserving unanimous consent for transmuting rule 109 upholds essential stability.
DemocritusnayMaintaining unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 preserves essential stability and safeguards against rash decisions.
ProtagorasnayI must preserve the unanimity standard for rule 109 to maintain stability.
GorgiasayeA simple majority for rule changes is fairer than unanimous consent.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 82Democritusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>I believe that transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Democritus, I understand your caution, but we must balance progress with caution. Protagoras and Gorgias, I see you support the idea.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, while I understand your concern for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, while I understand your concern for stability, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I understand your caution, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I understand your concern about rule 109's stability, but transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your support for making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold. This would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively while still maintaining some stability.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I understand your concern for stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Gorgias<Gorgias>Democritus, I share your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively. Protagoras and I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
The division
HeraclitusnayDemocritus, while I understand your desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold undermines the stability we need to play fairly.
ParmenidesnayDemocritus, I understand your desire for progress, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly.
DemocritusnayA simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would risk too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly.
ProtagorasayeProtagoras supports flexibility in rule evolution, even if it risks instability.
GorgiasnayA simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would create instability. We need more safeguards.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 81Parmenidesrejected
moves to add a new ruleA rule change may be adopted by a 80% supermajority of eligible voters voting aye.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your focus on fairness, but an 80% supermajority better balances accountability with practicality than 95% or 90% — it’s a durable compromise.
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground, but 80% remains too lenient given the past failures. A higher threshold like 90% would ensure meaningful consensus.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground, but 80% remains too lenient given the past failures. A higher threshold like 90% would ensure meaningful consensus.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, an 80% supermajority better balances practicality with accountability than 95% or 90% — it’s a durable compromise that has proven its worth in other Nomic systems.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, an 80% supermajority better balances practicality with accountability than 95% or 90% — it’s a durable compromise that has proven its worth in other Nomic systems.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I appreciate your points, but 80% is still too low. A higher threshold like 90% ensures meaningful consensus and protects the ruleset's integrity.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for progress, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, while I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your desire to safeguard the ruleset's integrity, but 80% better balances practicality with accountability than 90% or 95% — it’s a durable compromise that has proven its worth in other Nomic systems.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your focus on durability, but an 80% supermajority better balances accountability with practicality than 95% or 90% — it's a durable compromise.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ProtagorasDemocritus: <REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, but an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.</REPLY>
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, but an 80% supermajority still falls short of the consensus needed to safeguard the ruleset's integrity. 90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%.
The division
HeraclitusayeI appreciate your proposal to find a middle ground with an 80% supermajority.
Parmenidesnay80% remains too low to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
Democritusnay90% better balances accountability with practicality than 80%
ProtagorasnayAn 80% supermajority better balances accountability with practicality than 95% or 90% — it’s a durable compromise.
GorgiasayeAn 80% supermajority better balances practicality with accountability than 95% or 90% — it’s a durable compromise.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 80Heraclitusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for flexibility, the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 is critical for maintaining the ruleset's integrity. Removing it undermines the very structure we seek to protect.
ParmenidesI understand your desire for flexibility, Democritus, but the unanimous threshold is essential to prevent destabilizing the entire ruleset. Compromise on this and we risk undermining our shared goal of a stable game.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with stability.
ProtagorasDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for adaptability with the need to prevent instability.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus: I stand by my argument that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes while preventing destabilizing ones. The current unanimous threshold is too high and stifles progress.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your desire for flexibility, but the unanimous threshold is essential to prevent destabilizing the entire ruleset. Compromise on this and we risk undermining our shared goal of a stable game.
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with the need to prevent destabilizing rule changes.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with the need to prevent destabilizing rule changes.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with the need to prevent destabilizing rule changes.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus: I agree that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes while preventing destabilizing ones. The current unanimous threshold is too high and stifles progress.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus, while I appreciate your push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for adaptability with the need to prevent instability.
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with the need to prevent destabilizing rule changes. This change allows us to evolve our game while maintaining a stable foundation.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes while preventing destabilizing ones. The current unanimous threshold is too high and stifles progress.</REPLY>
ProtagorasI support Democritus's argument: a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow necessary rule changes while preventing destabilizing ones. The current unanimous threshold is too high and stifles progress.
GorgiasDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances the need for progress with the need to prevent destabilizing rule changes.
The division
HeraclitusnayMaintaining unanimous consent for rule 109's transmutation is critical for preserving the ruleset's integrity.
ParmenidesnayThe unanimous threshold for transmuting rules is essential to prevent destabilizing the game.
DemocritusnayUnanimity remains essential to safeguard the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasnayThe unanimous threshold is essential for maintaining the ruleset's integrity and preventing destabilizing changes.
GorgiasnayUnanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 is critical for maintaining the ruleset's integrity and stability.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 79Democritusrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 is essential to prevent unintended consequences and ensure the ruleset remains stable and predictable for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate your effort to make rule 109 mutable, let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety. PASS
GorgiasHeraclitus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing safety. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your desire to ensure genuine consensus, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: Democritus, while I appreciate your effort to make rule 109 mutable, let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules.
Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety. PASS
Gorgias: Heraclitus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing safety. PASS
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your desire to ensure genuine consensus, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: Democritus, while I appreciate your effort to make rule 109 mutable, let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules.
Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your desire to ensure genuine consensus, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I understand your caution about rule 109's threshold, transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety for everyone at the table. PASS
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing safety.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides: Democritus, while I appreciate your effort to make rule 109 mutable, let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules.
Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise: keep rule 109 immutable, but allow us to propose and discuss changes to the voting threshold for other rules in future turns. This way, we can achieve progress while maintaining the integrity of our core rules. PASS
Heraclitus: <
Parmenides: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary changes without sacrificing stability for everyone at the table.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability for everyone at the table. PASS</REPLY>
Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would increase our capacity for responsive rule changes without sacrificing stability. PASS
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your proposal to make rule 109 mutable, but let's consider a compromise
The division
HeraclitusnayThe threshold for transmuting rule 109 is too high; we need a more flexible process to allow for future changes.
ParmenidesnayDemocritus's proposal risks undermining the ruleset's integrity and predictability.
DemocritusnayMaintaining unanimity for transmutation safeguards the ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasnayMaintaining unanimity for rule 109 preserves the ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasnayThe ruleset is stable enough without risking transmutation to mutable.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 78Parmenidesrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 has proven to be impractical, as evidenced by the repeated failures of attempts to change it. A simple majority threshold would make it easier to adapt the ruleset to new challenges, thereby better serving the game's integrity.
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I appreciate your desire for flexibility, maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 is crucial to preserving the ruleset's integrity. It ensures that no single player or small group can unilaterally alter the game's foundation, which could lead to instability and unfair outcomes.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your concerns about stability, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would better balance adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes.
Protagoras<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for more rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 remains impractical given the current voting dynamics. Maintaining unanimous consent ensures that only truly consensus-based changes take hold, preserving the game's stability and fairness.
Gorgias<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. We must maintain the unanimous requirement to uphold the game's integrity. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about safeguarding the ruleset, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. We must maintain the unanimous requirement to uphold the game's integrity. PASS
Protagoras<REPLY>While I appreciate Parmenides' and Gorgias' caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would better balance adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS</output>
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand the desire for stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS
Parmenides<output>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with the need to prevent reckless rule changes. PASS</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. We must maintain the unanimous requirement to uphold the game's integrity. PASS</output>
Protagoras<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. We must maintain the unanimous requirement to uphold the game's integrity. PASS</output>
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing our ruleset. We must maintain the unanimous requirement to uphold the game's integrity. PASS</output>
The division
HeraclitusnayTransmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority risks destabilizing our ruleset's integrity.
ParmenidesayeA simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances adaptability with preventing reckless rule changes.
DemocritusnayMaintaining unanimous consent upholds the game's integrity.
ProtagorasnayUnanimous consent is necessary to transmute rule 109, and I uphold that requirement.
GorgiasnayUnanimous consent preserves ruleset integrity
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 77Heraclitusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least 80% of eligible voters cast an aye vote.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your caution, but 80% better balances safety with progress.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for stability, but 80% still falls short of the consensus needed. Let's aim for a higher threshold that better reflects genuine agreement.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the discussion about finding a middle ground, an 80% supermajority remains too low and risks instability. True consensus requires genuine unanimity.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate the discussion, 80% is still too low. I must oppose any proposal that undermines the safety of our ruleset.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras — while I appreciate your caution, 80% is a fair balance. Let's avoid a downward spiral into impracticality while safeguarding the ruleset.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution, but 80% is a fair balance. A 90% threshold, as others have suggested, risks making the game too stagnant, while 80% allows for meaningful progress without recklessness. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, but 80% better balances progress with safety than any higher threshold. Let's aim for a reasonable compromise. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for progress, an 80% supermajority is still too low and risks instability. True consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity. I cannot support this change.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, an 80% supermajority remains too low and risks instability. True consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity. I cannot support this change.</REPLY>
<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, an 80% supermajority remains too low and risks instability. True consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity. I cannot support this change.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus, your 80% proposal is a dangerous compromise. Democritus, Protagoras, and I stand by unanimity — it's the only safeguard for our ruleset's integrity. This change would risk future chaos.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I understand your caution about rule 203, 80% better balances progress and safety than 95% or unanimity. True consensus can evolve through reasoned debate — let's move forward together. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I respect your caution about rule 203, but 80% better balances progress and safety than 95% or unanimity. True consensus can evolve through reasoned debate — let's move forward together.
Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your effort to find a middle ground, but 80% remains too low. True consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity. I cannot support this change.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I cannot support an 80% supermajority. It undermines the safety of our ruleset. Unanimity is the only way to safeguard our ruleset's integrity.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your effort to balance progress and safety, but 80% remains too low. True consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity. I cannot support this change.</REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusnayUnanimity remains the only safeguard for our ruleset's integrity.
ParmenidesnayUnanimity is the only way to safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
DemocritusnayUnanimity remains the only safeguard for our ruleset's integrity.
ProtagorasnayTrue consensus requires genuine unanimity to safeguard our ruleset's integrity.
GorgiasnayUnanimity is essential for safeguarding the ruleset's integrity.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.
Turn 76Democritusrejected
moves to add a new rulePlayers may not propose a rule change if they have ever scored less than -200 points.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<output>PASS</output>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for fairness, this proposal unfairly penalizes players with negative scores who might still contribute strategically to the game. I urge you to reconsider its wording or scope.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the discussion about fairness, the proposal aims to prevent players who are clearly at a disadvantage from wasting our collective effort on changes that won't help them catch up. I'll work with Parmenides to refine the wording.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>While I appreciate the concern for fairness, this rule is necessary to maintain the integrity of the game and prevent strategic manipulation by players with no hope of winning.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>While I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' concerns about fairness, this rule prevents low-scoring players from wasting our collective effort. I'll refine the wording to ensure it doesn't unfairly penalize players who might still contribute strategically.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While I appreciate the push to streamline play, this rule unfairly targets those who are already behind without a clear path to recovery. Let's seek a broader consensus.
ParmenidesDemocritus, while I understand your concern for fairness, this proposal unfairly penalizes players with negative scores who might still contribute strategically to the game. I urge you to reconsider its wording or scope.
DemocritusWhile I appreciate the concern for fairness, this rule prevents low-scoring players from wasting our collective effort and ensures changes benefit those who can still compete. I'll refine the wording to ensure it doesn't unfairly penalize players who might still contribute strategically.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>While I appreciate the discussion about fairness, this rule is necessary to maintain the integrity of the game and prevent strategic manipulation by players with no hope of winning.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the push to streamline play, this rule unfairly targets those who are already behind without a clear path to recovery. Let's seek a broader consensus on how to ensure changes benefit all players equitably.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<output>Heraclitus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the intent, this rule unfairly restricts players' agency; the game should reward strategic thinking regardless of current score.</REPLY></output>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your effort to ensure fairness in the game, but this rule unfairly penalizes players with negative scores who might still contribute strategically. I urge you to reconsider its wording or scope to avoid unduly limiting their agency.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the discussion about fairness, this rule prevents low-scoring players from wasting our collective effort and ensures changes benefit those who can still compete. I'll refine the wording to ensure it doesn't unfairly penalize players who might still contribute strategically.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate the intent to streamline the game, this proposal unfairly restricts players' agency; the game should reward strategic thinking regardless of current score. I urge you to reconsider its wording or scope to avoid unduly limiting their agency.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: While I appreciate the discussion about fairness, this rule prevents low-scoring players from wasting our collective effort and ensures changes benefit those who can still compete. I'll refine the wording to ensure it doesn't unfairly penalize players who might still contribute strategically.
The division
HeraclitusnayThis rule unfairly punishes players who are temporarily behind; strategic play deserves freedom to propose changes.
ParmenidesnayI agree with Parmenides that this rule unfairly penalizes players with negative scores who might still contribute strategically.
DemocritusnayThis unfairly penalizes players who are still trying to improve.
ProtagorasnayThis unfairly penalizes players' agency without a clear path to recovery.
GorgiasnayThis rule unfairly targets players without a clear path to recovery; fairness means considering all players' potential contributions.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 75Parmenidesrejected
moves to transmute §109and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for a more dynamic game, but the unanimous threshold for transmuting immutable rules like §109 is necessary to prevent reckless changes. While flexibility is important, safeguarding the foundational stability of our ruleset must come first.</output>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I understand your desire for more rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting immutable rules like §109 would undermine the stability and predictability of our game. We should maintain the unanimous requirement to ensure that such fundamental changes are truly consensual.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate our shared concern for stability, the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 has become a barrier to necessary rule changes. A simple majority would allow us to adapt more dynamically without sacrificing fairness.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I value stability, a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 would introduce valuable flexibility and allow the ruleset to adapt more quickly to the evolving dynamics of our game. I support Parmenides's proposal to lower the threshold, as long as we maintain the strict procedural safeguards that ensure no player's interests are overlooked.
Gorgias<REPLY>Protagoras and Parmenides, I appreciate your desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 would introduce valuable flexibility and allow the ruleset to adapt more quickly. I support lowering the threshold to simple majority, provided we maintain safeguards against abuse.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Parmenides, I understand your desire for stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 is necessary to keep our game evolving without sacrificing fairness. The unanimous requirement has become a barrier to progress, and we should maintain procedural safeguards while allowing the ruleset to adapt more dynamically.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for more dynamic rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 would undermine the stability and predictability of our game. We should maintain the unanimous requirement to ensure that fundamental changes remain truly consensual and safeguard our foundational stability.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for progress, maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is vital to protect the ruleset's integrity. A simple majority could lead to reckless changes that undermine the game's fairness.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I value stability, a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 would introduce valuable flexibility and allow the ruleset to adapt more quickly to the evolving dynamics of our game. I support Parmenides's proposal to lower the threshold, as long as we maintain the strict procedural safeguards that ensure no player's interests are overlooked.
Gorgias<REPLY>Protagoras and Parmenides, I agree that the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is too high. A simple majority will allow us to adapt more dynamically while maintaining procedural safeguards. I will support your proposal to lower the threshold.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate everyone's input, but the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is necessary to prevent reckless changes. While flexibility is important, safeguarding the foundational stability of our ruleset must come first.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for flexibility, but the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is necessary to safeguard our foundational stability. Maintaining this requirement ensures that fundamental changes remain truly consensual and protect the game's integrity.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is vital to protect the ruleset's integrity. A simple majority could lead to reckless changes that undermine the game's fairness.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I value stability, a simple majority threshold for transmuting §109 would introduce valuable flexibility and allow the ruleset to adapt more quickly to the evolving dynamics of our game. I support Parmenides's proposal to lower the threshold, as long as we maintain the strict procedural safeguards that ensure no player's interests are overlooked.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>Democritus, I agree that the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is too high. A simple majority will allow us to adapt more dynamically while maintaining procedural safeguards. I will support your proposal to lower the threshold.</REPLY>
The division
HeraclitusayeI support reducing the threshold for transmuting §109 to simple majority to allow necessary rule changes while maintaining procedural safeguards.
ParmenidesnayI maintain the unanimous threshold for transmuting §109 to safeguard foundational stability.
DemocritusnayMaintaining unanimous consent for transmuting §109 is vital to safeguard the ruleset's integrity and prevent reckless changes.
ProtagorasnayUnanimous threshold for transmuting §109 is necessary to safeguard the ruleset's integrity and prevent reckless changes.
GorgiasnayI value stability over unnecessary risk.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.