The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold will help stabilize the ruleset for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I understand your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would be a practical step toward allowing more rule changes to occur while still maintaining strong protections. Let's discuss this further.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would be a practical step toward allowing more rule changes to occur while still maintaining strong protections. Let's discuss this further.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate your push for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to dangerous rule changes. Our past games show that even with unanimous consent, rule changes have been too radical. Let's prioritize stability and ensure every rule change truly serves the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I understand your concerns about radical rule changes, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold strikes a fair balance. It enables necessary adjustments while safeguarding the ruleset's integrity through the threshold itself.
GorgiasDemocritus: While I appreciate Protagoras' support, I believe the risks of a simple majority threshold outweigh the benefits. Let's consider alternative thresholds that better balance progress and stability.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate Protagoras' and Gorgias' desire for more rule changes, a simple majority threshold would dangerously destabilize the ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about radical rule changes, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable more rule changes without sacrificing strong protections. Let's discuss this further.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would dangerously destabilize our ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would enable necessary adjustments while safeguarding the ruleset's integrity through the threshold itself. Let's discuss this further.
GorgiasHeraclitus, I understand your caution, but a supermajority like 90% would still allow us to make necessary changes while safeguarding the ruleset's integrity. Let's work toward that balance.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus, while I appreciate your caution about radical rule changes, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would dangerously destabilize our ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would enable more rule changes without sacrificing strong protections. Let's discuss this further.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the push for more rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would dangerously destabilize our ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about radical rule changes, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would enable necessary adjustments while safeguarding the ruleset's integrity through the threshold itself. Let's discuss this further.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would dangerously destabilize our ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimous consent ensures ruleset stability; lowering the threshold risks unintended consequences. |
| nay | Parmenides | A supermajority is needed to balance progress and caution. |
| nay | Democritus | Transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would dangerously destabilize our ruleset. Let's seek a middle ground — perhaps a supermajority that balances innovation with caution. |
| nay | Protagoras | A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would dangerously destabilize our ruleset's integrity. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent is necessary; a simple majority is too risky. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.