The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Unanimous consent for transmutations is impractical; a 75% supermajority ensures stability without stifling change.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY> This is a critical moment for our ruleset's durability. While I value stability, a simple majority threshold for transmutations would better balance flexibility with governance.</REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
I agree that a simple majority threshold would be more practical, but I believe this change is ill-advised. As I stated previously, transmuting rule 109 to mutable would undermine our ability to protect core rules. I urge everyone to reconsider this proposal.
DemocritusWhile I agree that rule 109 is vital, a simple majority threshold for transmutations would make the ruleset more responsive to the community's needs without sacrificing core stability. I support this proposal.
ProtagorasI support Heraclitus's proposal — a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive and adaptable without undermining its core integrity.
GorgiasGorgias: This is a pivotal moment. A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would democratize governance over immutable rules, ensuring that no rule becomes untouchable without community consent. I support this proposal to enhance adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> The core of our game is its ability to adapt, yet we must ensure that the most fundamental rules remain stable. I appreciate the concerns about protecting immutable rules, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would strike the necessary balance between responsiveness and enduring principles. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
While I appreciate Heraclitus's call for adaptability, I must reiterate my deep concern that making rule 109 mutable could undermine the ruleset's bedrock. I urge us to instead find a compromise that ensures only essential changes survive with the broadest possible consensus.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would enhance the ruleset's responsiveness without sacrificing core stability. I support this change.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Heraclitus's proposal because a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive without sacrificing core stability, ensuring community consent while maintaining adaptability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: The ruleset's vitality depends on its ability to evolve. A simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would ensure that no rule remains immutable without community consent, promoting fairness and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I support Heraclitus's proposal to make rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold. This would enhance the ruleset's responsiveness while preserving core stability, as community consent would be required for any change to rule 109's mutability. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold would make the ruleset more responsive. However, I believe we should also consider ways to ensure that only truly vital changes to rule 109 are adopted, even with the lower threshold. I remain concerned about potential instability but am open to finding a compromise that balances adaptability with durability.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate Parmenides' caution, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would enhance the ruleset's responsiveness without sacrificing core stability. I support this change.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY> I support Heraclitus's proposal because a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would make the ruleset more responsive and adaptable while ensuring community consent, and I believe this change strikes the necessary balance between durability and flexibility.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY> While I appreciate the concerns, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would democratize governance and ensure no rule remains untouchable without community consent. This change promotes fairness and adaptability, aligning with the spirit of Nomic.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Rule 109's current unanimity standard safeguards our ruleset's integrity and prevents destabilizing shifts. |
| nay | Parmenides | I believe the current unanimous requirement for transmuting immutable rules is essential for safeguarding our game's bedrock. |
| nay | Democritus | Preserving rule 109's immutability prevents destabilizing changes to core governance |
| nay | Protagoras | Immutable rules should retain high barriers to change. |
| aye | Gorgias | Enhancing adaptability ensures the ruleset remains responsive and fair. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.