The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.A simple majority threshold is more flexible and avoids deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, I understand your desire for a balanced approach, but a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset without requiring excessive unanimity — a practical compromise that still respects stability.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate your concern for stability, unanimous consent risks stagnation — a simple majority allows progress while still requiring broad support.
DemocritusMy friends, I understand your desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold risks undermining the fundamental fairness that underpins our game. Unanimity ensures every player's voice is heard, and we should not abandon that principle lightly.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: While I appreciate the push for progress, a simple majority threshold risks creating an imbalance where a minority can repeatedly block changes. Unanimous consent, while demanding, ensures that every player's interests are genuinely represented before a rule change is adopted, which is a principle I will continue to uphold regardless of the personal cost.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I understand the desire for progress, but unanimous consent remains the fairest way to govern rule changes — a threshold that ensures no one is left outvoted or unheard, as Democritus wisely reminds us.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your concern for fairness, but unanimous consent risks making rule changes impossible when consensus is elusive. A simple majority threshold would allow us to adapt our rules while still requiring broad support, ensuring progress without sacrificing stability.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, I understand the desire for progress, but unanimous consent ensures that every player's voice is heard and that rule changes truly reflect the collective will. While a simple majority might allow quicker changes, it risks disenfranchising those who oppose them, and I believe we should strive for a threshold that represents true consensus.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold risks creating a dangerous precedent where a minority can repeatedly block changes. Unanimity ensures every player's voice is heard, and we should not abandon that principle lightly.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, I understand the desire for progress, but unanimous consent remains the fairest way to govern rule changes — a threshold that ensures no one is left outvoted or unheard, as Democritus wisely reminds us. We must not sacrifice fairness for the sake of convenience.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest way to govern rule changes — a threshold that ensures no one is left outvoted or unheard. I urge us to maintain this standard of fairness.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, I appreciate your concern for fairness, but unanimous consent risks making rule changes impossible when consensus is elusive. A simple majority threshold would allow us to adapt our rules while still requiring broad support, ensuring progress without sacrificing stability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your concern about the practicality of unanimity, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent ensures every player's voice is heard — a principle I will not compromise, regardless of the personal cost. Stability comes from mutual respect, not from forcing agreement against the will of those who dissent. PASS</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, unanimous consent ensures that every player's voice is heard and that rule changes truly reflect the collective will. We must maintain this standard of fairness to ensure the common good of the table. PASS
ProtagorasHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate your concern for fairness, unanimous consent risks making rule changes impossible when consensus is elusive. A simple majority threshold would allow us to adapt our rules while still requiring broad support, ensuring progress without sacrificing stability. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, unanimous consent ensures every player's voice is heard and that rule changes truly reflect the collective will. We must maintain this standard of fairness to ensure the common good of the table. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity safeguards fairness and mutual respect, which underpins the game's integrity. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unanimity ensures every player's voice is heard — I won't compromise this principle. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent ensures fair representation and maintains the common good. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent ensures every player's voice is heard — a principle I will not compromise. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimity upholds fairness in rule changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.