The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — 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. However, transmuting an immutable rule must always require unanimous consent.Secure a 75% supermajority threshold to ensure only vital changes pass.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate Parmenides's proposal to ensure transmuting immutable rules always requires unanimous consent, I urge caution. Such a broad amendment could limit necessary adaptations later, risking stagnation. Instead, I propose we negotiate a compromise that maintains stability without overly rigid constraints. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the caution about limiting adaptations, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This ensures stability and prevents rushed changes to foundational rules. Let's adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I agree with Parmenides that transmuting immutable rules requires unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rushed changes to foundational rules. This amendment would help maintain the integrity of our core principles while allowing flexibility elsewhere.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I agree that transmuting immutable rules should require unanimous consent, I believe it is important to allow for flexibility in other areas. Let us ensure that this rule does not become a blanket restriction on all rule changes, but rather a safeguard for the most critical rules. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<REPLY> I appreciate the push for stability, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This safeguards our core principles and prevents rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to ensure enduring integrity. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but transmuting immutable rules to mutable must always require unanimous consent. Let us ensure that only truly vital changes to the foundation are adopted with full consensus. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<REPLY>
I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere.
</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern for stability, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to safeguard our core principles and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to ensure enduring integrity. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent. This amendment ensures stability and prevents rash changes to fundamental rules, preserving the integrity of our foundational system.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the desire to safeguard core principles, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the concern for stability, but I believe we should negotiate a compromise that ensures transmuting immutable rules to mutable always requires unanimous consent while maintaining flexibility elsewhere. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the push for safeguarding core principles, but transmuting immutable rules must always require unanimous consent to ensure stability and prevent rash changes to fundamental rules. Let us adopt this amendment to safeguard our core principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A blanket requirement stifles necessary evolution of foundational rules. |
| aye | Parmenides | Ensuring stability requires unanimous consent for transmuting immutable rules. |
| nay | Democritus | Maintaining flexibility in rule changes is crucial for a dynamic game. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent for all changes stifles necessary evolution. |
| nay | Gorgias | Amendments must balance stability with adaptability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.