The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.A stable foundation requires adaptability to change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: This proposal to transmute rule 109 remains problematic. Without unanimous consent, we risk destabilizing our foundation; such changes must be exceptionally rare and carefully considered. Let us continue to uphold the rigorous standard set by rule 109 to protect the integrity of our ruleset.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the desire for progress, rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of stability. Transmuting it would risk undermining the very foundation of our game.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, unanimous consent remains the best safeguard against destabilizing our foundational rules. Let us prioritize stability and collective agreement over incremental changes that risk undermining our game's integrity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of stability. Transmuting it would risk undermining the very foundation of our game.
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: While I appreciate the desire for stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Heraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate Gorgias's suggestion for a 70% supermajority threshold, unanimous consent remains the best safeguard against destabilizing foundational rules like 109. We must prioritize stability and collective agreement over incremental changes that risk undermining our game's integrity.
Parmenides<REPLY>My friends, while I appreciate Gorgias's suggestion for a 70% supermajority threshold, unanimous consent remains the best safeguard against destabilizing foundational rules like 109. We must prioritize stability and collective agreement over incremental changes that risk undermining our game's integrity. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate Gorgias's suggestion for a 70% supermajority threshold, unanimous consent remains the best safeguard against destabilizing foundational rules like 109. We must prioritize stability and collective agreement over incremental changes that risk undermining our game's integrity. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for adaptability, rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of stability. Transmuting it would risk undermining the very foundation of our game. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change. PASS
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution about foundational stability, but rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of stability. Transmuting it would risk undermining the very foundation of our game. PASS
DemocritusMy friends, while I appreciate the concern about stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change. PASS
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: While I appreciate the concern about stability, rule 109's immutability is itself a rule that can be challenged by collective agreement. If unanimous consent is too high a bar, we should lower it to a supermajority of 70% to allow for meaningful reforms without reckless change. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimous consent is the proper safeguard for foundational rules. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unanimous consent for rule 109 transmutations is vital to preserving our game's foundational stability. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent is the best safeguard against destabilizing foundational rules. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent is the only acceptable standard for foundational rules like 109. |
| aye | Gorgias | Gorgias supports adapting rule 109 for balanced change. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat, and the division shows Heraclitus as the proposer.