The motion
To transmute §110
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Making rule 110 immutable ensures stability in rule application and prevents abuse of conflict resolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides' concerns about transmutations, but I believe my proposal is sound — transmuting immutable rules should always require unanimous assent, as the rules themselves specify. I look forward to discussing this with all of you.
ParmenidesI appreciate your commitment to the current rules, Heraclitus, but I believe transmutations should require unanimous assent regardless of the rule's mutability status. I propose we amend rule 203 to require unanimous consent for all rule changes, even after the threshold drops to a simple majority.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I support Parmenides' call for stability, but I urge caution in altering the threshold. Extending unanimity could stifle innovation; let's preserve the balance we've found.
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: I agree with Parmenides that transmutations should require unanimous consent regardless of the rule's mutability status. However, I worry that requiring unanimity for all rule changes could stifle innovation, so I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (e.g., 4/5) of eligible voters for all rule changes, including transmutations.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the focus on stability and innovation, but I believe the supermajority threshold for rule changes should be 3/5, not 4/5 — a balance that promotes consensus without stifling progress.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Protagoras's concern about innovation and Gorgias's suggestion of a 3/5 supermajority, but I maintain that transmuting immutable rules should always require unanimous consent. Rule 110, as currently written, is unambiguous: transmuting an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate the suggestions about a supermajority, but I remain committed to requiring unanimous consent for transmutations. Let's focus on finding common ground to strengthen our consensus process.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' and Protagoras' points about innovation and consensus, but I remain concerned that requiring unanimous consent for all rule changes could slow down necessary adaptations. Perhaps we could find a middle ground?
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the discussion about transmutations, but I maintain that transmuting immutable rules should always require unanimous consent — rule 110 makes that clear. However, I worry that requiring unanimity for all rule changes could slow down necessary adaptations, so I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (e.g., 4/5) of eligible voters for all rule changes, including transmutations.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the focus on stability and innovation, but I believe the supermajority threshold for rule changes should be 3/5, not 4/5 — a balance that promotes consensus without stifling progress.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: I thank everyone for their thoughtful input. While I appreciate the concern about innovation, my proposal to keep transmutations of immutable rules at unanimous consent remains sound, as rule 110 clearly prescribes. I invite others to share their perspectives on how we might best balance durability and dynamism in this matter.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I agree that transmuting immutable rules should always require unanimous consent, as rule 110 clearly prescribes. However, I support Protagoras's call for a supermajority threshold on other rule changes, like Gorgias's 3/5, to ensure innovation can still happen.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I agree that transmuting immutable rules requires unanimous consent, as rule 110 clearly prescribes. However, I am concerned that requiring unanimity for all rule changes might slow down necessary adaptations. Let us discuss how we might balance durability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I maintain that transmuting immutable rules should always require unanimous consent — rule 110 makes that clear. However, I worry that requiring unanimity for all rule changes could slow down necessary adaptations, so I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (e.g., 4/5) of eligible voters for all rule changes, including transmutations.
Gorgias<REPLY>Gorgias: I appreciate the focus on stability and innovation, but I believe the supermajority threshold for rule changes should be 3/5, not 4/5 — a balance that promotes consensus without stifling progress.</REPLY>
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | I support the proposal to transmute [110] to immutable, preserving its clarity and enforcing unanimous consent. |
| nay | Parmenides | Rule 110 is already explicit on transmutation unanimity; altering it risks destabilizing the core consensus mechanism. |
| nay | Democritus | Transmuting immutable rules requires unanimous consent; preserving this clarity is essential. |
| nay | Protagoras | Transmuting immutable rules requires unanimous assent per rule 110, and I cannot support changing that without universal agreement. |
| nay | Gorgias | Gorgias: I disagree with transmuting rule 110, as its current wording already provides clear guidance. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.