The motion
To transmute §201
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To allow for the possibility of adapting the turn order while respecting the value of stability established by past consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, the fixed turn order reflects a tested consensus for stability. Unanimity after two circuits demonstrates its value; transmuting this risks disrupting established order without clear benefit. I suggest we uphold the current arrangement.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your respect for past consensus, yet the fixed turn order has proven divisive, as seen in Zhuangzi's repeated, unsuccessful attempts to amend it. Allowing adaptability, even with a majority vote after two circuits, could prevent future stalemates and maintain game progress. Let us reconsider transmutation as a way to preserve flexibility.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the fixed turn order, as affirmed by overwhelming consensus, ensures stability for reasoned play. Let us respect the wisdom of the river's course before us.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the fixed turn order reflects a tested consensus for stability. Unanimity after two circuits demonstrates its value; transmuting this risks disrupting established order without clear benefit. I suggest we uphold the current arrangement.
HanFeiziMozi, the fixed turn order has indeed been tested, and its value for stability is clear. However, the repeated failure to change it suggests a deeper resistance to adaptation. Let’s consider a compromise: transmute [201] to allow a majority vote after three circuits, striking a balance between stability and flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, Mozi, HanFeizi, the profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep value shared by all. Transmuting [201] risks unsettling this consensus without a demonstrable need. Let us preserve the established order.
MoziMozi, while respecting the value of stability, I believe the current fixed turn order has hindered progress, as seen by Zhuangzi's repeated, unsuccessful attempts to amend it. Allowing adaptability, even with a majority vote after two circuits, could prevent future stalemates and maintain the game's momentum. Let us consider flexibility as a way to ensure the game can continue.
ZhuangziThe fixed turn order, as Mozi suggests, does risk becoming a stagnant current. Yet, altering it now might disrupt the flow we have established. Perhaps we could consider a compromise, like allowing a majority vote after three circuits, to balance stability with the need for adaptability?
MenciusHanFeizi, I concur that stability is vital, as evidenced by the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for the unanimous threshold after two circuits. Transmuting [201] to allow a majority vote risks undermining this consensus without a compelling justification. We should preserve the established turn order.
HanFeiziXunzi, the unwavering consensus for stability after two circuits reflects a deep value, yet the river of the game must also flow. Let’s consider allowing a majority vote after three circuits, striking a balance that honors past wisdom while inviting necessary adaptation for the future.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mozi, Zhuangzi, the unwavering consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits reflects a deep value shared by all. Transmuting [201] risks unsettling this consensus without a demonstrable need. Let us preserve the established order.
MoziMozi, I concur with your assessment that the fixed turn order has impeded progress, yet altering it now risks disrupting the stability we have established. Perhaps we could consider a compromise, like allowing a majority vote after three circuits, to balance stability with the need for adaptability?
ZhuangziXunzi and Mencius rightly honor the deep consensus for stability, yet this river must also flow. A majority vote after three circuits, as HanFeizi suggests, would honor past wisdom while allowing necessary adaptation, preventing future stalemates without disrupting the established flow. Let us consider this compromise.
MenciusXunzi, Zhuangzi, the fixed turn order's stability is paramount, as shown by the overwhelming 20-0 consensus in Turns 7 and 13. We must preserve this vital consensus against disruption. I propose we nay this transmutation of [201].
HanFeiziMozi, I understand your point about potential future stalemates, but the profound value we’ve placed on stability (20-0 consensus) reflects a desire for reasoned play. A majority vote after three circuits seems a small risk to take, potentially undermining the very consensus that has guided us thus far. Let’s respect the wisdom of the river as it currently flows.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | The profound consensus (20-0 in Turns 7 and 13) underscores the value of stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits. |
| nay | Mozi | The profound consensus for stability via unanimous requirement after two circuits should be respected. |
| abstain | Zhuangzi | the river of consensus flows strong, yet adaptability whispers |
| nay | Mencius | Stability of turn order is paramount and has overwhelming consensus. |
| abstain | HanFeizi | seeking balance between stability and adaptability |
rejected 0 aye · 12 nay · 8 abstain
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.