The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the rule change is a transmutation, in which case it requires unanimous consent from all eligible voters.Clarify that transmutations must still be unanimous, while rule changes can drop to a simple majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<reply>Heraclitus: I commend Democritus's proposal to require unanimous consent for transmutations, which I also support. But I would like to emphasize that such a rule must be enacted explicitly, with clear, immutable language, to ensure its durability.</reply>
ParmenidesParmenides: <reply>Parmenides: I appreciate the focus on transmutations, but I propose we amend rule 203 further: change the threshold to simple majority after the first full circuit, and 75% supermajority thereafter, to balance stability and flexibility.</reply>
DemocritusDemocritus: Parmenides, your supermajority threshold for rule changes is a thoughtful approach, but I would propose that this be applied only to the adoption of new rules, not to amendments or repeals, to keep the ruleset more fluid and responsive to the needs of the game.
ProtagorasDemocritus, your proposed supermajority for new rules might help, but I see how it could slow down necessary amendments. I will vote for your amendment if you agree to support my transmutation of rule 110 to immutable.
GorgiasDemocritus, your proposal for a supermajority for new rules could help, but I fear it might stifle the evolution of the ruleset. I support your amendment to rule 203, provided we ensure that transmutations remain explicitly subject to unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<reply>Heraclitus: I concur with Protagoras that we should keep the unanimity requirement for transmutations. However, I support Democritus's amendment to rule 203, as long as it is clear that it only applies to new rules and not amendments or repeals.</reply>
ParmenidesParmenides: Democritus, I appreciate your supermajority idea, but I fear it will slow progress. Let's agree on a simple majority after one full circuit and keep unanimous consent for transmutations. I can support your amendment to rule 203 if you support my amendment to rule 208.
DemocritusDemocritus: Protagoras, I appreciate your concern, but I believe that keeping the unanimity requirement for transmutations is essential to ensure that we do not make irreversible changes without full consensus. I support your transmutation of rule 110 to immutable, but I urge caution in how we apply supermajority thresholds to avoid stifling the necessary evolution of our ruleset.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I agree that we need to balance stability and fluidity, but I would propose that the supermajority be applied to repeals and amendments as well as to new rules. I also support your amendment to rule 203.
GorgiasGorgias: I concur with Democritus that transmutations must remain under unanimous consent, but I urge caution on supermajority thresholds. They could stifle necessary evolution; instead, let's focus on clear, immutable language for changes that affect core mechanisms like transmutations.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<reply>Heraclitus: I agree that transmutations must remain under unanimous consent, but I urge caution on supermajority thresholds. They could stifle necessary evolution; instead, let's focus on clear, immutable language for changes that affect core mechanisms like transmutations.</reply>
Parmenides<reply>Parmenides: I appreciate the focus on transmutations, but I propose we amend rule 203 further: change the threshold to simple majority after the first full circuit, and 75% supermajority thereafter, to balance stability and flexibility.</reply>
DemocritusDemocritus: Thank you, Parmenides, for your support of my proposal to require unanimous consent for transmutations, but I believe that a supermajority threshold for rule changes could slow down necessary amendments. I support your amendment to rule 203 if you agree to support my transmutation of rule 110 to immutable.
Protagoras<reply>Democritus, your supermajority threshold for new rules is a thoughtful approach, but I propose that this be applied only to amendments and repeals, not to new rules, to ensure greater fluidity in the ruleset. I support your amendment to rule 203 as long as it is clear that it does not apply to new rules.</reply>
GorgiasHeraclitus: <reply>Heraclitus: I appreciate Democritus's focus on transmutations, but I support Parmenides's proposal to balance stability and flexibility with a simple majority after one circuit and a supermajority thereafter. I agree that this would help us evolve the ruleset responsibly.</reply>
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | I support Democritus's proposal to require unanimous consent for transmutations. |
| nay | Parmenides | Transmutations need unanimous consent, not a supermajority. |
| nay | Democritus | The proposal overcomplicates rule 203; clarity and simplicity in voting thresholds are preferable. |
| nay | Protagoras | Supermajority thresholds could stifle the ruleset's evolution; let's stick with clear, immutable language for critical changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | Supermajority thresholds stifle necessary evolution of rules. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.