The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.A simple majority threshold better balances adaptability and stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold for rule changes better balances flexibility and stability. Please consider adopting my proposal.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity. However, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress, making the game more dynamic. Please consider adopting my proposal.</output>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the push for adaptability, maintaining the unanimous threshold for transmuting rule 109 ensures that any change to the ruleset's core structure requires the full agreement of all players. This safeguards against any single player or small group imposing changes against the common good.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, Parmenides, I agree that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would make rule changes more accessible. However, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks making the game too prone to sudden and destabilizing changes. Let's maintain the current unanimous threshold.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress, making the game more dynamic. Please consider adopting my proposal.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority better balances progress and stability. Please consider adopting my proposal.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree with Parmenides that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress. Let's adopt it together.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the discussion about making rule 109 mutable with a simple majority threshold, maintaining the unanimous requirement for transmuting a rule's mutability ensures that any change to the ruleset's core structure requires the full agreement of all players. This safeguards against any single player or small group imposing changes against the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, Parmenides, I respect the push for more flexibility, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 risks destabilizing the ruleset. I vote against this proposal.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress, making the game more dynamic. Please consider adopting my proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusDemocritus, I understand the desire for adaptability, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold for rule changes better balances progress and stability. Please consider adopting my proposal.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress, making the game more dynamic. Please consider adopting my proposal.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>While I appreciate the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 risks destabilizing the ruleset. Maintaining unanimous consent ensures that any change to the ruleset's core structure requires the full agreement of all players, safeguarding against any single player or small group imposing changes against the common good.</REPLY>
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras, Gorgias, I support maintaining the unanimity rule for transmutations — it prevents minority rule and ensures that the ruleset's core structure reflects all players' consent. I vote against Parmenides' proposal.</REPLY>
GorgiasI appreciate the discussion about safeguarding the ruleset's integrity, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 would allow more progress, making the game more dynamic. Please consider adopting my proposal.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Parmenides | Maintaining unanimous consent for transmutations safeguards against destabilizing changes. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent prevents minority rule and ensures full agreement. |
| nay | Protagoras | A simple majority would risk destabilizing the ruleset by allowing any single player to change its core structure. |
| nay | Gorgias | Maintaining unanimity safeguards against destabilizing changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.