The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Transmuting rule 109 to mutable would make it easier to adjust mutability thresholds in the future.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.
GorgiasGorgias: While I share Democritus's concern for stability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress.
Parmenides<REPLY> Democritus, I appreciate your concern about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I appreciate Democritus's caution, a 75% supermajority would strike a fair balance between stability and progress, enabling meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for a stable ruleset, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority would enable meaningful change without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. A 75% supermajority remains far too low to ensure genuine consensus and might lead to rule changes that benefit a minority at the expense of the common good.
Protagoras<REPLY>Democritus, while I agree that 75% is a fair balance between stability and progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority would risk destabilizing the ruleset. I maintain that a 75% supermajority is still far too low to ensure genuine consensus.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable meaningful rule changes without the current gridlock. A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding the ruleset and enabling progress. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A 75% supermajority remains too low to ensure genuine consensus. |
| nay | Parmenides | Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would risk destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Democritus | A 75% supermajority still risks rule changes that benefit a minority, undermining the common good. |
| nay | Protagoras | A simple majority threshold for transmuting an immutable rule is too low for genuine consensus. |
| aye | Gorgias | A 75% supermajority strikes a fair balance between safeguarding and enabling progress. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.