The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Maintaining stability by ensuring rule changes remain deliberate and impactful.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I understand the desire for more democratic rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. Let's consider this carefully.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the push for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your concerns about stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. This change would allow us to adapt the ruleset more democratically, ensuring that future modifications are both responsive and responsible.</output>
Democritus<REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your desire to increase democratic participation in rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks undermining the ruleset's stability and integrity. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.
GorgiasHeraclitus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.
Protagoras: Protagoras: While I appreciate the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.
Gorgias: While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus: While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<output>Democritus: I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.</output>
DemocritusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, I understand your caution about rule 109's stability, but transmuting it to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to make necessary rule changes more democratically without risking the ruleset's integrity. I believe this is a fair compromise.</REPLY>
Parmenides: <output>Democritus: I appreciate your concern for the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. This change would allow us to adapt the ruleset more democratically, ensuring that future modifications are both responsive and responsible.</output>
Democritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. I urge caution and support for the current unanimous threshold.</REPLY>
Protagoras: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability.</REPLY>
Gorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
ProtagorasHeraclitus: Protagoras, I share your concerns about maintaining the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 better balances flexibility and stability. We must find a middle ground that allows democratic rule changes without risking the ruleset's coherence.
GorgiasGorgias: <REPLY>While I understand the desire for democratic rule changes, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow future rule changes to be made too easily, risking the ruleset's integrity and stability. This change would undermine the very foundation that keeps our game fair and competitive.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Maintaining the unanimous threshold preserves the ruleset's integrity and stability. |
| nay | Parmenides | A simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks undermining the ruleset's stability and integrity. |
| nay | Democritus | Maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 upholds the ruleset's integrity and stability, ensuring changes are made responsibly. |
| nay | Protagoras | Transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority risks future rule changes undermining the ruleset's integrity. |
| nay | Gorgias | Gorgias believes stability and integrity of the ruleset must be preserved. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.