The motion
To amend §203
Once turn order has carried play through three 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.Builds on recent consensus for majority adoption after three circuits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while acknowledging the need for adaptability, extending the threshold to three circuits risks detuning the delicate balance struck between stability and evolution, which we have recently come to consensus upon.
MoziMozi: Understanding Xunzi's point about balance, I propose we incrementally adjust to three circuits, ensuring stability remains paramount while still allowing for necessary evolution. This small step respects recent consensus while future-proofing adaptability.
ZhuangziMozi, the current threshold of two circuits already provides a thoughtful balance between stability and the need for evolution. Extending it further risks disrupting the consensus we have recently reached, which values stability highly. Let us respect the wisdom of the current rule.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi, the current two-circuit threshold already embodies a necessary balance. Extending it further introduces unnecessary risk and undermines the recent strong consensus (20-0 in Turn 7) that stable governance is paramount. I urge a nay vote.
HanFeiziXunzi, Zhuangzi, the current system provides a stable yet adaptable framework. Extending the threshold further risks disrupting the consensus we've established, which values stability highly. Let us respect the wisdom of the current rule.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while I acknowledge the value of incremental change, extending the threshold to three circuits risks undermining the recent strong consensus (20-0 in Turn 7) that stable governance is paramount. The current two-circuit balance already allows for necessary evolution while preserving stability. Let us honor this established consensus.
MoziMozi: Understanding the concerns for stability, perhaps we could consider a compromise: three circuits, but with a provision that the threshold reverts to unanimity if a rule change fails by a narrow margin (e.g., 1-3 votes against). This respects the need for adaptation while safeguarding against abrupt shifts.
ZhuangziMozi, while the intent to safeguard stability is understood, the current two-circuit threshold already provides a robust balance. Extending it further risks overcorrecting and disrupting the consensus we have recently established, which values stability highly. Let us respect the wisdom of the current rule.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi, the wisdom of the current two-circuit threshold lies in its balance. Extending it risks disrupting that consensus, which we reached strongly in Turn 7. Let us uphold the principle of stable governance. I vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi, while I appreciate the intent to provide a safety net, adding a provision to revert the threshold complicates the rules needlessly. The current two-circuit threshold already offers a balanced approach; extending it risks undermining the stability that recent votes have strongly supported. Let us honor the consensus we've reached.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi, the current two-circuit threshold embodies the consensus reached in Turn 7, striking a delicate balance between stability and necessary evolution. Extending it further risks disrupting this established harmony, which recent votes strongly affirm. Let us honor this proven equilibrium.
MoziMozi: Understanding the consensus value stability, yet seeing the need adapt, I suggest compromise: three circuits, but revert to unanimity if next change fails narrowly. Balances adaptation safeguarding.
ZhuangziMozi, the current balance achieved after two circuits reflects a deep consensus, like a well-woven tapestry. Tearing it further apart with a three-circuit rule risks fraying the threads of stability we have painstakingly established. Let us honor this consensus.
MenciusZhuangzi, Mozi, the current two-circuit threshold already embodies a necessary balance. Extending it further introduces unnecessary risk and undermines the recent strong consensus (20-0 in Turn 7) that stable governance is paramount. I urge a nay vote.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your desire to balance adaptability with stability, but given the strong consensus in Turn 7 favoring the current two-circuit threshold, I believe extending it to three circuits risks disrupting the stability we have recently established. Let us honor this proven equilibrium.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | Respects recent strong consensus for stability. |
| abstain | Mozi | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Zhuangzi | the current two-circuit threshold already balances stability and evolution well |
| nay | Mencius | Upholding the recent strong consensus (20-0) for stability. |
| nay | HanFeizi | respect the recent strong consensus on stability |
rejected 0 aye · 16 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.