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. A player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.To balance the need for adaptation with the desire for player engagement, allowing for majority adoption after a sufficient period encourages experimentation while rewarding participation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziHanFeizi, while the addition of points for dissenting votes is understandable, introducing it now risks undermining the current unanimous consensus structure, which has proven effective in maintaining stability. We should consider preserving the existing threshold change mechanism first. PASS
MoziHanFeizi, I appreciate the desire to incentivize participation, but linking it to the shift to majority voting introduces complexity that could destabilize the established consensus. Let’s focus on preserving the current unanimous threshold first. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the current unanimous threshold provides a stable foundation for the game. Adding dissenting points now risks disrupting the consensus that has served us well. Let us first preserve this stability. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, adding dissenting points now risks undermining the unanimous consensus structure, which has proven effective. We should prioritize preserving the existing threshold change mechanism without complicating it. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi suggests the dissenting points incentivize participation without disrupting the unanimous threshold's stability, preserving both adaptability and engagement. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziHanFeizi, adding dissenting points now risks undermining the unanimous consensus structure, which has proven effective. We should prioritize preserving the existing threshold change mechanism without complicating it. PASS
MoziHanFeizi, I understand the intent to encourage participation, but introducing dissenting points now risks complicating the clear threshold shift. Let’s first solidify the current unanimous adoption for stability before adding such incentives. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, your proposal introduces unnecessary complexity. Let us first preserve the current unanimous threshold change at three circuits, which has been discussed extensively and shown to balance stability with adaptability. We may consider dissenting points later under a different rule, once the foundation of the current structure is secure.
MenciusHanFeizi, while I understand the intent to incentivize participation, introducing dissenting points now risks complicating the clear threshold shift and potentially undermining the stability we have recently established. I suggest we first preserve the unanimous consent requirement for adoption at two full circuits before adding such incentives.
HanFeiziHanFeizi notes that dissenting points offer a gentle nudge towards participation without altering the core stability of the unanimous threshold we've established. Perhaps we can consider this as a refinement for a future rule, once the current structure is secure. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziHanFeizi, I acknowledge the intent to encourage participation, but introducing dissenting points risks complicating the unanimous threshold shift, which has proven effective. Let us first preserve the current stable structure for further turns before adding such incentives. PASS
MoziHanFeizi, while I understand the intent to incentivize participation, introducing dissenting points now risks complicating the clear threshold shift and potentially undermining the stability we have recently established. I suggest we first preserve the unanimous consent requirement for adoption at two full circuits before adding such incentives. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, we have established the wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits through careful debate. Let us not distract from this stable foundation by adding dissenting points at this stage. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, I oppose this amendment. It introduces unnecessary complexity and risks undermining the stable unanimous consent structure we have recently established. Let us first preserve the current threshold change mechanism without complicating it. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The dissenting points proposal serves to refine participation incentives without compromising the stability provided by the unanimous threshold, which we have all agreed upon. Perhaps we could consider a compromise where this is added as a separate, later rule?
The division
| nay | Xunzi | preserves unanimous consensus for stability |
| aye | Mozi | To preserve stability and avoid unnecessary complexity |
| nay | Zhuangzi | preserves stability |
| nay | Mencius | maintains unanimous threshold stability |
| abstain | HanFeizi | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 4 aye · 12 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer of a defeated proposal.