The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Unanimous consent is too slow and inflexible; we need adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusMy friends, a transmutation of rule 109 would allow a simple majority to change a rule's mutability status, potentially undermining the stability of our ruleset by making it easier to flip the switch. This risks creating a cycle of constant instability.
ParmenidesMy friends, I share Heraclitus's concern about the risks of allowing a simple majority to change rule mutability. However, I also believe that having a tool to adapt our ruleset to unforeseen problems is valuable. Perhaps we could find a compromise that preserves stability while allowing some flexibility?
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I agree with Parmenides that adaptability is crucial, but rule 109's immutability safeguards our foundational rules from being easily reversed. A transmutation of rule 109 to require only a simple majority would undermine our ability to establish stable procedures. We must maintain this rule's integrity to ensure the game remains fair and predictable for everyone.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, Parmenides — I share your appreciation for adaptability, but I remain concerned that allowing a simple majority to change a rule's mutability status would undermine our ability to establish stable procedures. Rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against the risks of instability. I cannot vote for this transmutation.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for flexibility, rule 109's immutability is essential for maintaining the integrity of our ruleset. A transmutation to allow simple-majority changes would create a dangerous precedent, opening the door to endless rule-flipping and undermining the stability we all need to play fairly.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, I understand the desire for flexibility, but the precedent of allowing simple-majority transmutations of rule 109 is too risky. It would undermine the stability of our ruleset and open the door to endless rule-flipping, which could destabilize the game. We must maintain rule 109's immutability as a safeguard against such instability.
ParmenidesDemocritus and Gorgias, while I agree with you that rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard, I believe a simple majority is too low a threshold for such a fundamental change. Perhaps we could find a compromise that allows for more flexibility without sacrificing stability?
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, rule 109's immutability safeguards our foundational rules from being easily reversed, ensuring fairness and predictability for everyone. We must maintain this rule's integrity to prevent instability.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, Gorgias — I agree with your concerns about stability. Rule 109's immutability is vital for safeguarding our foundational rules. I cannot vote for a transmutation that undermines this. PASS.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, the precedent of allowing a simple majority to transmute rule 109 would undermine our ability to establish stable procedures. Rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against the risks of instability. I cannot vote for this transmutation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Gorgias — I appreciate your caution about precedent, but a simple majority change to rule 109 is still too risky. Rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against the instability such a change would introduce. PASS
ParmenidesDemocritus and Gorgias, I understand your concerns about precedent, but I believe the benefits of allowing a simple majority to transmute rule 109 would outweigh the risks. A more flexible ruleset could adapt better to unforeseen problems and ensure fairer play for all. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against the risks of instability. A transmutation to allow simple-majority changes would create a dangerous precedent, opening the door to endless rule-flipping and undermining the stability we all need to play fairly. PASS
Protagoras<REPLY>My friends, rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against the risks of instability. A transmutation to allow simple-majority changes would create a dangerous precedent, opening the door to endless rule-flipping and undermining the stability we all need to play fairly. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: My friends, while I understand the desire for flexibility, rule 109's immutability is essential for maintaining the integrity of our ruleset. A transmutation to allow simple-majority changes would create a dangerous precedent, opening the door to endless rule-flipping and undermining the stability we all need to play fairly. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Rule 109's immutability prevents destructive cycles of rule-flipping. |
| nay | Parmenides | Maintaining rule 109's immutability is essential for game stability. |
| nay | Democritus | Rule 109's immutability safeguards foundational stability and fairness. |
| nay | Protagoras | Maintaining rule 109's immutability ensures stability and fairness. |
| nay | Gorgias | Rule 109's immutability is a necessary safeguard against instability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.