The motion
To amend §203
Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold for adoption becomes a simple majority of those voting, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise, and a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.Maintain flexibility while rewarding constructive participation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, this proposal adds a complex penalty for dissenting votes, potentially discouraging meaningful debate. Let us first solidify the threshold adjustment before introducing such a penalty.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi; let's first focus on the threshold adjustment. We can address the dissenting vote penalty separately to ensure clarity and avoid complicating the core change.
ZhuangziMozi, I agree that the threshold adjustment warrants careful consideration. However, the addition of points for dissenting votes aligns with the spirit of free expression, encouraging diverse perspectives without penalizing dissent. Let us proceed with the amendment.
MenciusZhuangzi, the dissenting vote penalty risks unduly discouraging necessary debate. Let us first ensure the threshold adjustment stands on its own merits before adding such a provision.
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests we prioritize the core change to the threshold, ensuring it enhances adaptability without disrupting established play. Addressing the dissenting vote penalty separately will allow us to refine it thoughtfully.
Discussion · round 2
XunziHanFeizi, Zhuangzi, the recent history demonstrates that altering the adoption threshold requires careful consideration. Introducing a dissenting vote penalty simultaneously risks overshadowing the threshold adjustment's merits. Let us first clarify the threshold itself before adding further complexities.
MoziMozi notes the valid concerns regarding the penalty for dissenting votes. To address concerns about disrupting established play, perhaps we could modify the dissenting vote provision to grant points only after the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, ensuring the core change to adaptability is prioritized first.
ZhuangziZhuangzi acknowledges the valid concerns for stability. Let us proceed with the threshold adjustment alone for now, ensuring adaptability without immediate disruption, and address the dissenting vote penalty in a separate, well-considered proposal.
MenciusZhuangzi, I concur that adding complexities simultaneously risks distraction. Let us first adopt the threshold change (§203) to test its effects, and address the dissenting vote points in a subsequent, separate proposal.
HanFeiziXunzi is correct; stability should precede adaptability. Let us first adopt the threshold change (§203) as proposed, ensuring adaptability enters the game thoughtfully without immediate disruption. We can address the dissenting vote points in a subsequent, separate proposal.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while the threshold adjustment deserves consideration, introducing a dissenting vote penalty concurrently risks complicating a delicate balance. Let us first refine the threshold itself before adding further incentives or penalties that could overshadow its merits.
MoziMozi suggests we first adopt the threshold change (§203) to test its effects, and address the dissenting vote points in a subsequent, separate proposal, ensuring adaptability is prioritized without immediate disruption.
ZhuangziZhuangzi: The current unanimous threshold serves the common good well, providing stability while allowing for adaptation. Let us not rush to alter it, nor introduce complexities like dissenting vote penalties, which risk disrupting the delicate balance we have begun to establish. We should proceed with caution, refining the rules only when necessary.
MenciusMencius: The threshold adjustment to majority rule (§203) risks undermining the procedural stability we have established. It is imperative to maintain unanimous consent for adoption until we fully understand the implications of such a shift. Let us proceed with extreme caution.
HanFeiziHanFeizi, I appreciate the call for caution, but the current unanimous threshold after two circuits has proven rigid and inflexible, as recent failed proposals demonstrate. Let us proceed with the threshold adjustment to test its effects, ensuring adaptability enters the game thoughtfully. We can address the dissenting vote points in a subsequent, separate proposal, prioritizing clear, focused changes.
The division
| abstain | Xunzi | the immediate introduction of dissenting vote penalties risks overshadowing the necessary focus on refining the threshold adjustment itself. |
| nay | Mozi | maintain stability before introducing adaptability incentives |
| nay | Zhuangzi | maintain stability before introducing penalties |
| nay | Mencius | unanimity is essential for fairness |
| nay | HanFeizi | prioritize clear, focused changes |
rejected 0 aye · 16 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated proposal.