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, provided further that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible, and 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 adaptability with the stability demonstrated by recent votes, and to incentivize broader consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the principle of rewarding participation is well-intentioned, yet linking it to lowering the adoption threshold introduces complexity without demonstrable benefit. We have already established the utility of stability, and extending the unanimous threshold serves the common good by ensuring broad consensus. I urge maintaining the status quo.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, the reward for participation fosters engagement without compromising stability; it aligns with the spirit of compromise we seek. Let us adopt this refinement to encourage broader support for beneficial changes.
ZhuangziMozi, while the reward for participation is agreeable, linking it to lowering the threshold risks undermining the stability we have painstakingly established. The unanimous consent after two circuits serves the common good well by ensuring broad agreement. Let us preserve this balance.
MenciusMozi, the reward for participation does not necessitate lowering the threshold. We can separately provide the reward while preserving the unanimous threshold, ensuring stability and fairness remain paramount. Let’s keep the core principle of stability and add the reward for participation as a separate amendment.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: I appreciate the desire to incentivize participation, Mozi, but adding a reward for dissenting votes risks undermining the stability we've collectively valued. We should consider incentives that encourage support for beneficial changes rather than rewarding opposition.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while I acknowledge your desire to incentivize participation, linking it directly to lowering the adoption threshold introduces unnecessary complexity and risks undermining the stability we have collectively valued. Let us preserve the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as established, and consider separate mechanisms for rewarding participation.
MoziMozi: I appreciate the concerns raised regarding stability, Xunzi, Zhuangzi, and HanFeizi. To address the complexity concern, Mencius, the reward for participation could be introduced as a separate amendment, ensuring stability remains our foundation. Let's proceed with this clear separation.
ZhuangziMozi, while the reward for participation is a worthy goal, linking it directly to lowering the threshold risks unsettling the stability we have carefully cultivated. Perhaps we might consider rewarding participation separately, without altering the unanimous threshold after two circuits, thus preserving the equilibrium we have achieved.
MenciusMozi, your proposal still risks undermining the stability we have painstakingly established by linking participation rewards to a lower threshold. Let us first confirm the wisdom of the unanimous threshold after two circuits, as repeatedly affirmed, and consider separate mechanisms for incentivizing participation. We can preserve the core principle of stability and fairness.
HanFeiziMozi, I admire the goal of incentivizing participation, but linking it directly to lowering the threshold risks undermining the stability we've collectively valued. We should consider incentives that encourage support for beneficial changes rather than rewarding opposition. Let's preserve the unanimous threshold after two circuits.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, the reward for participation could indeed encourage engagement, yet linking it directly to lowering the adoption threshold introduces a risk to the stability we have repeatedly confirmed as essential. Let us consider separately rewarding participation without altering the unanimous threshold after two circuits, thus preserving the equilibrium we have achieved.
MoziMozi: I acknowledge the concerns about stability. To refine, let’s adopt the threshold change (§203) as proposed, but *separately* introduce a rule rewarding participation (like §204). This honors the stability consensus while still incentivizing engagement.
ZhuangziMozi, your refined proposal balances participation incentives with the stability we value. Separating the threshold change from the reward mechanism is wise, ensuring we retain the consensus reached in Turn 7. Let us proceed with your amended rule 203.
MenciusMozi, separating the threshold change from the reward mechanism is prudent. However, I still contend that maintaining the unanimous threshold after two circuits best体现了 collective deliberation and stability, which we have consistently affirmed. Let us proceed with your amended rule 203 but remain open to further discussion on rewarding participation through a separate rule.
HanFeiziMozi, while the separation of incentives is prudent, the risk of dissenting rewards undermining the unanimous threshold remains. Let us first solidify the stability gained through unanimous consent after two circuits, as repeatedly confirmed, before introducing separate participation rewards.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | maintains stability established by consensus |
| aye | Mozi | separates threshold from participation reward |
| nay | Zhuangzi | preserves stability established by consensus |
| nay | Mencius | maintains stability principle |
| nay | HanFeizi | preserves stability established by consensus |
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to a player who votes against an adopted change.