Turn 92 — Nomic

The motion

To transmute §109

and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.

A mutable rule 109 enables further rule changes, preventing stagnation.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for stability, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold better balances flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset. A simple majority is not a low bar; it is a widely accepted standard in democracies, and it ensures that rule changes can be made when there is a clear consensus, while still requiring broad agreement. This change will allow us to adapt the game effectively without jeopardizing its integrity. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your desire for flexibility, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the game effectively without jeopardizing its integrity. This change strikes a fair balance between flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset.</output>

Democritus<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard. A supermajority threshold would better ensure that any change to rule 109 is truly significant and well-considered.</REPLY>

Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate your caution about safeguarding the ruleset, a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 strikes a fair balance between flexibility and stability. I will support this change. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, while I appreciate the desire for more democratic rule changes, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard. A supermajority threshold would better ensure that any change to rule 109 is truly significant and well-considered. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Gorgias: <REPLY>Democritus: I share your concern about safeguarding the ruleset, but a supermajority threshold would stifle necessary evolution. We need the flexibility to adapt as the game unfolds, and a simple majority allows us to do that responsibly.</REPLY>

Discussion · round 2

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Heraclitus: Democritus, while I appreciate your caution, transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority will allow us to adapt the game without jeopardizing its integrity. A supermajority would stifle necessary evolution, and a simple majority strikes a fair balance between flexibility and stability.

ParmenidesDemocritus, I understand your caution, but transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the game effectively without jeopardizing its integrity. This change strikes a fair balance between flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset.

DemocritusHeraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a supermajority threshold is still necessary to ensure that any change to rule 109 is truly significant and well-considered. A simple majority would allow us to change it at will, which undermines its role as a safeguard. PASS

Protagoras<REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I agree that a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 strikes a fair balance between flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset. I will support this change. </REPLY>

Gorgias<REPLY>Democritus: I share your concern about safeguarding the ruleset, but a simple majority for transmuting rule 109 strikes a fair balance between flexibility and stability. This change will allow us to adapt the game effectively without jeopardizing its integrity. </REPLY>

Discussion · round 3

Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY>Democritus: I appreciate your desire for stability, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 strikes a fair balance between flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset. It ensures that changes are made responsibly, with broad consensus, while still allowing necessary evolution. This is a prudent step forward.</REPLY> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>

DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard. A supermajority threshold would better ensure that any change to rule 109 is truly significant and well-considered. PASS

ProtagorasProtagoras: While I agree that a simple majority strikes a fair balance between flexibility and safeguarding the ruleset, Democritus's concern about undermining rule 109's role as a safeguard is valid. A supermajority threshold might be more prudent to ensure true consensus on such an important rule.

GorgiasDemocritus: <REPLY>Heraclitus, Parmenides, Protagoras, Gorgias: I appreciate your desire for adaptability, but a supermajority threshold for transmuting rule 109 is still necessary to ensure that any change is truly significant and well-considered. A simple majority would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard. PASS</REPLY>

The division

nay	Heraclitus	Transmuting rule 109 to mutable with a simple majority threshold would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard.
nay	Parmenides	Democritus, I share your concern about safeguarding the ruleset, but a simple majority threshold for transmuting rule 109 would allow us to change it at will, undermining its role as a safeguard.
nay	Democritus	A simple majority undermines rule 109's role as a safeguard.
nay	Protagoras	A simple majority threshold undermines rule 109's role as a safeguard.
aye	Gorgias	A simple majority balances adaptability with safeguarding the ruleset.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.