The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Transmuting rule 109 to mutable would enable more rule changes without unanimous consent, making the game more dynamic and fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>I believe that transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Democritus, I understand your caution, but we must balance progress with caution. Protagoras and Gorgias, I see you support the idea.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, while I understand your concern for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.</REPLY>
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus, while I understand your concern for stability, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I understand your caution, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your caution about stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I understand your concern about rule 109's stability, but transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.</REPLY>
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your support for making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold. This would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively while still maintaining some stability.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. We must find a better balance.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I understand your concern for stability, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 to mutable would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively, while still maintaining some stability. Protagoras and Gorgias, I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
Gorgias<Gorgias>Democritus, I share your concern for stability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to evolve our rules more effectively. Protagoras and I appreciate your support for making our rules more adaptable.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Democritus, while I understand your desire for adaptability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold undermines the stability we need to play fairly. |
| nay | Parmenides | Democritus, I understand your desire for progress, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would open the door to too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. |
| nay | Democritus | A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would risk too many rule changes too quickly, undermining the stability we need to play fairly. |
| aye | Protagoras | Protagoras supports flexibility in rule evolution, even if it risks instability. |
| nay | Gorgias | A simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would create instability. We need more safeguards. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.