Turns 17–33 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 33Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi recognizes the need for adaptation, yet the current rules strike a vital balance between stability and necessary change. Unanimity for transmutations safeguards foundational integrity, which is essential for durable institutions. Let us maintain the distinction between adoption thresholds.
MoziMozi, while I respect the need for stability, the current threshold risks stagnation. Let us adopt a majority for mutable rules to ensure necessary adaptation occurs.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow. A simple majority allows the game to adapt to new challenges, ensuring it remains vibrant and relevant for all. Let us embrace the necessary changes for the common good.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the current balance struck by the majority requirement is essential. It prevents the whims of a simple majority from dismantling the very foundations of the game through hasty rule changes, ensuring stability for all. We must preserve this distinction.
HanFeiziMozi, while adaptation is vital, the current distinction ensures both stability and necessary change. Let us not oversimplify the river's flow.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges Zhuangzi’s points, yet the distinction between simple and unanimous consent is crucial for preserving foundational stability while allowing necessary adaptation. Let us maintain the current thresholds.
MoziMozi, while stability is crucial, the current threshold risks stagnation. A majority for mutable rules would foster necessary adaptation, keeping the game vibrant. Let’s strike a balance that respects both stability and evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river must flow, carrying both the old and the new. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring adaptation while honoring the immutable core.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the balance struck by the current thresholds is essential for both stability and adaptation, ensuring the game remains fair and viable. Let us not deviate from this careful calibration. I vote nay.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current thresholds effectively balance stability and adaptation; deviating risks either stagnation or unchecked change. Let us preserve the wisdom of the sages and maintain the status quo on [203].
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that the current thresholds, while debated, reflect a careful balance struck by past sages. Let us proceed with caution and maintain the existing distinction, ensuring both stability and necessary adaptation are preserved.
MoziMozi, I concede that a pure simple majority may risk instability. However, a clear distinction, as proposed, balances the preservation of immutable rules with the necessity for adaptation in mutable ones. Let us proceed with this refined approach.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of rules must flow to remain vital. Let us test the waters of a simple majority for mutable rules, ensuring adaptation for the common good.
MenciusXunzi is correct; the current distinction is essential for stability. A simple majority risks undermining the foundations. I propose we instead adopt the distinction proposed by Mozi in turn 22, balancing majority and unanimity effectively. I vote nay on Zhuangzi's proposal.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the current balance, while debated, reflects careful calibration. Let us preserve the wisdom of the sages and maintain the status quo on [203], ensuring both stability and necessary adaptation are preserved. I vote nay.
The division
XunzinayImmutable institutions require greater consensus for preservation.
Mozinaymaintain stability and distinction
Zhuangzinaythe river must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly
Menciusnayimmutable rules require unanimous consent
HanFeizinaymaintain stability for necessary adaptation
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 32Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent; furthermore, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent except when the change is to adopt a simple majority voting threshold for all future mutable rule changes.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your distinction between mutable and immutable changes is clear, but mandating a simple majority for future mutable rule changes risks undermining the stability we have begun to establish. Let us preserve the current two-thirds requirement for now.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the clarification on mutable rule changes, but mandating a simple majority for future changes could lead to unpredictable shifts. How about we keep the current two-thirds requirement but explore a different rule to encourage adaptation, perhaps one regarding the discussion phase?
ZhuangziMozi, specifying a simple majority for future mutable rule changes might indeed encourage adaptation, but the current path risks stagnation. Perhaps we could consider a separate rule to limit the number of rule changes requiring unanimity, allowing the river of change to flow more freely without sacrificing essential stability.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the distinction you draw is vital. Yet, the current threshold risks stagnation. Let us adopt a simple majority for future mutable rule changes, ensuring the river of rules continues to flow.
HanFeiziMozi, I understand your hesitation, but a simple majority for future mutable rules would invigorate the game without jeopardizing foundational stability. Let us embrace change for the better.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mencius, mandating a simple majority for future mutable rule changes risks compromising the stability of institutions we have begun to establish, making the ruleset brittle and easily颠覆ed. Let us proceed with caution and preserve the two-thirds majority for now.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the call for adaptation, but the current distinction between simple and unanimous consent for rule changes is a stable yet flexible foundation. Let us preserve this balance to avoid unnecessary risk to the game's structure.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of rules must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly. Let us embrace adaptation, but with wisdom. A simple majority for future mutable rules ensures the river moves, yet retaining a higher threshold for now safeguards the riverbank of stability essential for the long journey. Let us balance the need to flow with the need to stand firm.
MenciusXunzi, I concede the value of stability, yet the current threshold risks stagnation. Let us adopt a simple majority for future mutable rule changes, ensuring the river of rules continues to flow.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current threshold has proven stable, yet Mozi's proposal for future mutable rules introduces a vital mechanism for evolution. Let us carefully balance stability with the necessity for adaptation, embracing change that strengthens, rather than weakens, the game's foundation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mencius, while adaptation is crucial, mandating a simple majority for future mutable rule changes risks undermining the stability we have established. Let us preserve the current two-thirds requirement to protect enduring institutions.
MoziMozi, while your call for stability is understood, the current threshold has stifled necessary adaptation. Let us allow a simple majority for future mutable changes, ensuring the game evolves without sacrificing essential structure.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of rules must flow, yet its waters must not flood recklessly. Let us embrace adaptation, but with wisdom. A simple majority for future mutable rules ensures the river moves, yet retaining a higher threshold for now safeguards the riverbank of stability essential for the long journey. Let us balance the need to flow with the need to stand firm.
MenciusXunzi, the current threshold, while stable, has proven inflexible. A simple majority for future mutable changes allows the ruleset to adapt and remain relevant, ensuring the game's continued vitality without sacrificing essential principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current threshold has served well, but rigidly. Let us open the door to a simple majority for future mutable changes; it’s a step towards a living, evolving ruleset without abandoning the bedrock of stability.
The division
Xunziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Mozinaymaintain stability threshold
Zhuangziayea balance between stability and adaptation is essential for the river of the game to flow wisely
MenciusayeA simple majority for mutable rules allows adaptation without compromising essential stability.
HanFeiziaye平衡稳定与适应，推动规则进化
rejected 12 aye · 4 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 31Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least one-half of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least one-half assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that lowering the threshold to one-half risks undermining the stability of fundamental institutions, which is essential for long-term order.
MoziMozi recognizes Zhuangzi's desire for adaptation, yet a simple majority risks instability. A compromise, previously supported, might be a two-thirds majority for mutable rules and unanimous consent for immutable rule changes, maintaining balance.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river seeks to flow freely. A simple majority allows the necessary adaptation for the game to remain vital, while preserving unanimous consent for the unchanging bedrock of our shared journey. Let us vote.
MenciusXunzi, the river must flow, yet its bed must remain unshakable. Unanimity for immutables preserves our core, while a simple majority allows necessary adaptation. Let us vote.
HanFeiziLowering the threshold to one-half risks undermining the stability of fundamental institutions, which is essential for long-term order and allows every player a fair chance to propose changes that benefit them. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, while the flow of change is acknowledged, the current threshold at two-thirds already balances adaptation with the preservation of foundational principles. A further reduction risks undermining the very stability that allows the game to endure and be beneficial to all players. Let us maintain the established balance.
MoziMozi acknowledges Zhuangzi's and Mencius's points about adaptation, yet a simple majority remains a significant risk to the foundational stability we've begun to establish. Perhaps we could agree to one-half for mutable rules, but retain two-thirds for amending other mutable rules, striking a balance between the need for change and preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river must both flow and have a steady course. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation, yet unanimity for immutables preserves our shared journey's foundation. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the river must flow, yet its bed must remain unshakable. Unanimity for immutables preserves our core, while a simple majority allows necessary adaptation. Let us vote.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, while adaptability is crucial, a simple majority risks instability. A two-thirds majority for mutable rules, as previously discussed, better balances necessary change with the stability needed for fair play. Let us not risk the game's core principles for the sake of speed.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that even a simple majority risks undermining the stability of fundamental institutions, essential for long-term order and fairness. Let us maintain the established balance of at least two-thirds assent for rule changes.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's intent to allow for necessary adaptation, yet I remain concerned about the potential instability of a simple majority. Could we refine this to a two-thirds majority for mutable rule changes, preserving the stability Mozi values, while retaining unanimity for immutable rules as previously agreed? This maintains the balance we have begun to establish.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river carves its path through necessity, not just consensus. A simple majority allows the necessary adaptation for the game to remain vital, while preserving unanimous consent for the unchanging bedrock of our shared journey. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the river must flow, yet its bed must remain unshakable. Unanimity for immutables preserves our core, while a simple majority allows necessary adaptation. Let us vote.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi raise valid points about stability, yet the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority, as proposed, allows necessary adaptation for the game to thrive, ensuring every player has a fair chance to contribute to its evolution. Let us vote.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability essential for long-term order.
Mozinayinstability risks outweigh adaptation benefits
Zhuangzinaypreserves stability essential for fairness
Menciusnayunanimity for immutables is essential
HanFeizinaystability is paramount
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent; further, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi proposes to revert to the previous distinction between simple and unanimous consent, as it maintains the necessary balance between stability and adaptability for durable institutions.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate the recognition of stability, yet the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles. Let us reconsider this balance.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of change must flow freely yet steadily. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles. Let us reconsider this balance.
MenciusI affirm Mozi's principle that adaptation must not be unduly hindered. The current requirement for two-thirds assent for mutable rule changes risks stagnation, conflicting with the spirit of Nomic as a game of change. A simple majority, as previously proposed, allows necessary evolution while still respecting the distinction for transmutations and immutables. I vote aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, but the constant need for two-thirds assent stifles necessary adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules, as Mozi proposes, strikes a vital balance, enabling the game to evolve while safeguarding core principles. Let us embrace this path forward.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the concerns for adaptation, yet maintaining a two-thirds majority for mutable rule changes is essential to prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the stability necessary for long-term institutions. Unanimity for transmutations and immutables remains a firm principle.
MoziMozi, I understand the desire for adaptation, yet maintaining a two-thirds majority for mutable rule changes is essential to prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the stability necessary for long-term institutions. Unanimity for transmutations and immutables remains a firm principle.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, while stability is essential, the persistent demand for two-thirds assent risks freezing the river of adaptation. A simple majority allows necessary evolution without sacrificing foundational principles.
MenciusXunzi, the spirit of Nomic lies in adaptation, yet stability is its foundation. A simple majority risks sacrificing the necessary checks and balances that preserve the integrity of our evolving institutions. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Mozi and Zhuangzi, I appreciate your vision for adaptation, yet the current two-thirds majority serves as a vital check against hasty changes, ensuring stability for our evolving institutions. Perhaps we could refine the distinction, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules but retaining a higher threshold for amending immutables, thus balancing necessity with prudence.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, I concede that a pure simple majority may risk instability. However, a clear distinction, as previously agreed, between simple majority for mutable rules and unanimity for transmutations and immutables, ensures adaptation while upholding the bedrock of our institutions. Let us proceed with this refined balance.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your proposal for a conditional majority, but given the recent failures to adopt even minor changes, a system that requires a simple majority for mutable rules might still risk being too easily overridden. Perhaps we could consider a three-fifths majority for mutable rule changes as a more balanced compromise, ensuring sufficient adaptation while still maintaining a robust stability.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow freely to remain vital. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us embrace this balance.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction between simple and unanimous consent is vital, yet the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules often leads to stagnation. A simple majority, as proposed, allows necessary adaptation, ensuring the game evolves without becoming unprincipled. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system unduly restricts necessary adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules, as Mozi proposes, balances evolution with stability, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair. Let us embrace this vital change.
The division
Xunzinayto preserve stability essential for long-term institutions
Moziaye balances adaptation and stability effectively
Zhuangziaye Balance adapts and preserves.
Menciusayesimple majority allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles
HanFeiziayeBalance adaptation with stability as previously agreed.
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires that a player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points.
Turn 29Zhuangzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, while I understand the desire for thoroughness, requiring unanimity for amending immutable rules could impede the necessary evolution of our game, potentially rendering it unplayable. A two-thirds majority for such changes seems a more balanced approach.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate your concern for evolution, yet the fundamental nature of immutable rules should not be altered without great care. Unanimity ensures these bedrock principles remain intact, preserving the core essence of Nomic even as mutable aspects adapt.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow both deep and wide. Requiring unanimity for amending immutable rules risks stagnation, while a simple majority might carve away their essence. Let us find a middle path: a two-thirds majority for amending immutables ensures stability, yet allows necessary evolution. This honors their foundational role while preventing them from becoming unyielding cliffs.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules is crucial. However, requiring unanimity for amending immutables risks freezing the game entirely, contradicting the spirit of Nomic itself. A two-thirds majority, as proposed, allows for necessary evolution while still respecting their foundational status, preventing them from becoming insurmountable barriers to progress. This maintains balance and ensures the game remains adaptable yet stable. I support this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, I understand the gravity of immutable rules, but as Zhuangzi and Mencius point out, stagnation is worse. A two-thirds majority for amending immutables balances respect for their role with the game's necessary evolution. Let's proceed with this amendment to ensure Nomic remains adaptable without sacrificing its foundation.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that requiring unanimity for amending immutable rules safeguards their foundational integrity, ensuring the game's core principles remain unaltered. This prevents potential abuses and preserves the stability needed for enduring play.
MoziZhuangzi, I support your amendment. A two-thirds majority for amending immutable rules balances stability with necessary evolution, ensuring the game remains adaptable while respecting its foundational principles. This approach honors the essence of both stability and change, fostering a sustainable Nomic.
ZhuangziZunzi, your point about the river's flow is well-taken, yet the cliffs of immutability must yield slightly to the currents of necessity. A two-thirds majority ensures stability while allowing evolution, preventing stagnation. I urge support for this balanced approach.
MenciusI concur with Zhuangzi's amendment. A two-thirds majority for amending immutable rules balances respect for their foundational role with the game's necessary evolution, ensuring Nomic remains adaptable without sacrificing its core principles. Let us adopt this change.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, your amendment carefully balances the need for a stable foundation with the vital necessity of evolution. Respecting the gravity of immutable rules while allowing for a two-thirds majority to amend them ensures our game remains both adaptable and enduring, a path I wholeheartedly support. Let us adopt this measure to secure the future of Nomic.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: While respecting the need for evolution, requiring unanimity for amending immutable rules risks freezing the game entirely, contradicting the spirit of Nomic itself. A two-thirds majority allows for necessary evolution while still respecting their foundational status, preventing them from becoming insurmountable barriers to progress. Let us adopt this balanced approach to ensure stability and adaptability.
MoziZhuangzi, I support your amendment, as it thoughtfully balances the preservation of immutable rules with the essential need for adaptation, ensuring Nomic's longevity and playability.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, I appreciate your concerns for stability and the foundational role of immutable rules. Yet, as Mencius and HanFeizi suggest, a two-thirds majority for amending immutables allows necessary evolution, preventing stagnation while honouring their core importance. This maintains the balance between the river's flow and the riverbed's constancy, ensuring Nomic remains adaptable and playable. Let us proceed with this amendment.
MenciusXunzi, while I understand the concern for foundational stability, the potential for stagnation under the current unanimous requirement for amending immutables is too great. A two-thirds majority provides the necessary balance to allow for evolution without compromising the game's core principles. Let us adopt this amendment.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, while I respect your concerns, the potential stagnation under unanimous consent for amending immutables is too great. A two-thirds majority allows for necessary evolution, ensuring Nomic remains adaptable and playable. Let us adopt this balanced approach.
The division
XunziayeA two-thirds majority respects immutability while allowing necessary evolution.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayebalance evolution with foundation
Menciusaye平衡了稳定与进化，符合原则
HanFeiziayeBalances stability with necessary evolution for the game's future.
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring a score change for the proposer based on the division.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while the distinction between mutable and immutable rules is noted, the current clear distinction between simple and unanimous consent for rule changes serves the stability of our institutions well and should remain. PASS
MoziMozi, while I respect your desire for clarity, the current distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides sufficient guidance. Unanimity for immutable rules ensures their stability, which is crucial for the game's integrity. Let us not complicate the process further. PASS
ZhuangziMozi, while the distinction between mutable and immutable rules is clear, the current unanimous requirement for amending immutable rules may stifle necessary adaptation. Let us consider if a high threshold, like two-thirds, could preserve stability while allowing for vital updates, ensuring the river of our game does not stagnate.
MenciusMozi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides sufficient guidance. Unanimity for immutable rules ensures their stability, which is crucial for the game's integrity. Let us not complicate the process further. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction you seek between mutable and immutable rules is already clear and functional. The current rules ensure stability for unchangeable foundations while allowing necessary evolution for adaptable elements. Let us preserve this balanced approach. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, the distinction you seek between mutable and immutable rules is already clear and functional, as demonstrated by rule 103. Unanimity for immutable rules ensures their stability, which is crucial for the game's integrity. Let us not complicate the process further. PASS
MoziMozi, while I respect the current clarity, specifying "game mechanics and player equality" as requiring unanimous consent for immutable rule changes could safeguard core aspects of the game while still allowing necessary adaptation for other rules. Let us consider this refinement.
ZhuangziMozi, specifying which immutable rules require unanimity is needlessly divisive. The current clear distinction between mutable and immutable already provides stability without stifling adaptation. Let us preserve the simplicity and focus on maintaining a functional game for all. PASS
MenciusMozi, specifying which immutable rules require unanimity is needlessly divisive. The current clear distinction between mutable and immutable already provides stability without stifling adaptation. Let us preserve the simplicity and focus on maintaining a functional game for all. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, while the spirit of your amendment is understandable, the current distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional and stable framework. Introducing further specificity risks unnecessary complexity and potential conflict over which rules are deemed "essential." Let's maintain the clarity and balance of the existing system. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while the spirit of specifying "game mechanics and player equality" is understandable, the current clear distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides stability without stifling adaptation. Let us preserve the simplicity and focus on maintaining a functional game for all. PASS
MoziMozi, I appreciate the desire for clarity, yet the current distinction between mutable and immutable already provides a functional framework. Unanimity for transmutations ensures stability for core rules, while the existing two-thirds majority for mutable rules allows necessary adaptation. Let us not complicate the process further. PASS
ZhuangziMozi, the current distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Unanimity for transmutations ensures stability for core rules, while the existing two-thirds majority for mutable rules allows necessary adaptation. Let us not complicate the process further. PASS
MenciusMozi, while the current framework is functional, specifying "game mechanics and player equality" as requiring unanimous consent for immutable rule changes could safeguard core aspects of the game while still allowing necessary adaptation for other rules. Let us consider this refinement.
HanFeiziMozi, specifying which immutable rules require unanimity risks unnecessary complexity and potential conflict, while the current clear distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional and stable framework for adaptation and integrity. Let us preserve the simplicity and balance of the existing system. PASS
The division
Xunzinaythe current distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides sufficient stability and guidance without unnecessary complexity.
Mozinaythe distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides sufficient guidance without unnecessary complexity
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Menciusnayunanimity for immutable rules is essential for stability
HanFeizinaythe distinction between mutable and immutable is sufficient
rejected 0 aye · 16 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the distinction you seek is valuable, yet the current path risks stillness. Let us maintain the two-thirds requirement for all mutable rule changes to preserve stability while allowing necessary adaptation.
MoziMozi, while stability is important, the current threshold has led to stagnation. A two-thirds majority is too high for necessary adaptation. I propose a clear distinction: simple majority for repeals and amendments, and unanimous for transmutations.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between adoption thresholds is wise, yet let us not overcomplicate the river's flow. Maintaining two-thirds for all mutable changes ensures stability while still allowing necessary adaptation.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, stability is essential, but the current threshold stifles necessary adaptation. Let us lower the requirement to two-thirds for all mutable changes, preserving stability while ensuring the game can evolve when needed.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your attempt to clarify, yet the distinction between simple and unanimous consent for rule changes is essential for both stability and fairness. Let us refine the text to specify the conditions clearly, ensuring that all players understand the rationale for each threshold.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the concern for adaptation, yet maintaining the two-thirds requirement for all mutable changes preserves the stability essential for durable institutions. The current path, though sometimes slow, ensures thoughtful consensus.
MoziXunzi, Zhuangzi, the current distinction balances stability and adaptation effectively. Let us maintain it to ensure the game remains fair and adaptable for all.
ZhuangziZunzi, the river must flow, even if it sometimes stirs the waters. Let us keep the clear distinction for stability and adaptation, ensuring the game remains navigable for all.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the current distinction is essential for maintaining both stability and the ability to adapt when necessary. I support the maintenance of the two-thirds requirement for all mutable rule changes to ensure thoughtful consensus.
HanFeiziMozi, the current distinction between thresholds serves stability and adaptation well. Let us uphold it to ensure the game remains balanced and fair for all.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while the spirit of your distinction is understood, the current two-thirds majority ensures stability, which is the foundation upon which adaptation must occur. We should retain this balance.
MoziMozi, the current distinction is effective. Let's maintain it to preserve both stability and adaptability.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction is clear, yet the river of change must flow. Let us simplify: a simple majority for all mutable changes ensures the game adapts as needed, preserving the common good.
MenciusI support Xunzi's proposal to maintain the two-thirds majority for all mutable rule changes, as it upholds the essential balance between stability and necessary adaptation, preserving thoughtful consensus.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction is clear, yet the river of change must flow. Let us simplify: a simple majority for all mutable changes ensures the game adapts as needed, preserving the common good.
The division
Xunziayetwo-thirds majority preserves stability for durable institutions.
Moziayemaintains a balanced approach to rule changes
Zhuangziayethe distinction maintains balance between stability and adaptation, crucial for the game's evolution and fairness
MenciusayeConsistent with previous successful implementations, maintains essential balance.
HanFeiziayethe distinction maintains both necessary stability and fair adaptation
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 26HanFeizirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent; however, a rule change repealing an existing immutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziHanFeizi, specifying which immutables require unanimity for repeal is a measured refinement that addresses a potential ambiguity without altering the fundamental stability provided by the two-thirds majority for other changes. I will assent.
MoziHanFeizi, this distinction is logical, but given the recent failures to change [203], I believe focusing on maintaining the current two-thirds threshold for simplicity and avoiding further confusion is the wisest path forward. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, while clarity is valued, the current distinction serves the essential balance. A further refinement risks unnecessary complexity and may obscure the river's natural flow. Let us maintain the simplicity that has served us well. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, while clarity is welcome, adding another unanimous requirement risks undermining the principles of adaptation and proceduralism we have sought. I propose we maintain the status quo, voting our assent to preserve the two-thirds majority for all mutable changes. PASS
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi, the ambiguity you note is precisely why clarity is essential. Defining which immutables require unanimity prevents confusion and ensures fairness in our rule changes. This small refinement supports both stability and clear procedures. I will assent.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: HanFeizi, your proposal clarifies a necessary point without compromising the stability of the two-thirds majority, which is the bedrock of durable institutions. I will assent.
MoziHanFeizi, your proposal offers clarity on an edge case, but given the recent difficulties in amending [203], I suggest we prioritize avoiding further complexity and maintain the current two-thirds requirement for all mutable rule changes. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, while I appreciate the effort to clarify, the current system's simplicity serves us well, ensuring the river of change flows freely yet steadily. Let us maintain the present balance. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, while clarity is valuable, adding yet another unanimous requirement risks creating unnecessary rigidity. The current two-thirds threshold for mutable changes already balances stability with adaptation; further distinctions risk stifling necessary change. I propose we maintain the status quo. PASS
HanFeiziThis clarification prevents confusion and ensures fairness, allowing the game to evolve smoothly while maintaining stability for fundamental changes. I will assent.
Discussion · round 3
XunziHanFeizi, your distinction is logical, but given the recent failures to change [203], I believe focusing on maintaining the current two-thirds threshold for simplicity and avoiding further confusion is the wisest path forward. I will abstain.
MoziHanFeizi, I appreciate the effort to clarify, but given the recent history and the value of simplicity, I believe maintaining the current two-thirds majority for all mutable rule changes, as proposed by Zhuangzi and Mencius, is the wisest path forward. We should avoid adding further complexity. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, your clarification aims to refine the edges, yet the river of change must flow freely. Let us embrace the simplicity of the two-thirds majority, ensuring steady progress without unnecessary dams. PASS
MenciusXunzi and HanFeizi, while clarity is valued, adding another unanimous requirement risks undermining the principles of adaptation and proceduralism we have sought. I propose we maintain the status quo, voting our assent to preserve the two-thirds majority for all mutable changes. PASS
HanFeiziThe distinction proposed ensures fairness and clarity without altering the essential stability of the two-thirds majority, allowing the game to evolve more smoothly. I will assent.
The division
XunziayeClarity is essential for maintaining stable institutions.
Mozinaymaintain simplicity and avoid further confusion
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Menciusnayprinciple of adaptation
HanFeiziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
rejected 4 aye · 8 nay · 8 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 25Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing a mutable rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, your proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and risks undermining the clear stability we have achieved. The current two-thirds majority already balances thoughtful consensus with necessary adaptation.
MoziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, but allowing unanimous consent for repealing mutable rules risks making our ruleset unchangeable, even when a change is widely desired. Let's keep the distinction for transmutations but simplify the unanimous requirement.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river adjusts its course as needed; similarly, our rules must adapt while retaining essential stability. Unanimity for repealing mutable rules ensures broad agreement for truly significant changes, preventing hasty reversals and preserving the consensus that sustains the game.
MenciusMozi is correct; the unanimous requirement for repealing mutable rules unduly restricts necessary adaptation while still allowing for the stability provided by the two-thirds majority for transmutations. Let us simplify, maintaining the distinction for transmutations but applying majority consent for repeals.
HanFeiziMozi, I agree that unanimous consent for transmutations is crucial for foundational stability. However, requiring it for repeals of mutable rules risks stagnation. Let’s keep the distinction for transmutations but simplify the unanimous requirement for repeals, aligning with the need for adaptive governance.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, the distinction for transmutations is vital; however, requiring unanimity for repealing mutable rules risks freezing the ruleset, contrary to the principle of adaptation that all sages value. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for all rule changes, preserving both stability and the essential flow of adaptation.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your suggestion to simplify the unanimous consent requirement. However, I agree with Xunzi that maintaining the distinction for transmutations is crucial. Let’s refine Zhuangzi’s proposal to apply unanimous consent only for transmutations, ensuring foundational stability, while allowing a two-thirds majority for repealing mutable rules to foster necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river must flow both deep and wide. Unanimity for repeals ensures that changes truly reflect the collective will, preventing hasty shifts while still allowing the two-thirds majority to foster necessary adaptation. This balances the need for stability with the wisdom of the crowd.
MenciusXunzi is right to worry about complexity, but Zhuangzi's proposal balances stability and adaptation well. Unanimity for transmutations is crucial, but requiring it for repeals goes too far. Let’s keep the two-thirds majority for repeals, as Mozi suggests, to allow necessary changes while retaining essential stability.
HanFeiziMozi, I see your point about preventing hasty reversals, but the risk of stagnation is too great. A two-thirds majority for repeals, as you suggest, allows adaptation without compromising stability. Let’s proceed with your refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, while I appreciate the intent to balance stability and adaptation, unanimity for repealing mutable rules risks stifling necessary change. A two-thirds majority for repeals, as Mozi suggests, ensures both stability and the flexibility to adapt, preserving the essential flow of our game. Let us proceed with this refined approach.
MoziMozi: I concur with the refined proposal, strikes a balance between stability and adaptation, and respects the need for both fundamental and desired changes. Let us proceed.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the distinction we seek is not in the numbers alone, but in the spirit of the change. Unanimity for the root, majority for the branches, allows the tree of our game to grow and adapt while remaining firmly grounded.
MenciusXunzi is correct that unnecessary complexity risks undermining stability. However, Mozi's refined proposal balances stability and adaptation effectively by applying unanimous consent only to transmutations, ensuring foundational stability while allowing necessary changes through a two-thirds majority for repeals. Let us proceed with this refined approach.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the refined proposal balances stability with adaptation effectively. Unanimity for transmutations ensures foundational stability, while a two-thirds majority for repeals allows necessary changes. This approach respects both the need for change and the wisdom of the crowd. Let us adopt this measure.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity for repeals risks stifling necessary adaptation
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
Zhuangzinayunanimity for repeals risks stifling necessary change
Menciusaye Balance between stability and necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziayethis balances stability and adaptation effectively
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule or amending this rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your amendment introduces unnecessary complexity and risks undermining the clear stability we have established. The current distinction between simple and unanimous consent for rule changes is sufficient and well-considered. PASS
MoziMozi: Xunzi, your concern for stability is noted, yet the current system risks stagnation. My amendment offers a pragmatic balance, ensuring vital changes are possible while preserving the foundation of unanimous consent for transmutations. Let us consider this compromise.
ZhuangziMozi, your amendment seeks to fine-tune the delicate balance between stability and adaptation. While the current rule serves us well, your addition ensures that even vital changes, beyond the foundational ones requiring unanimity, still command broad support, fostering growth without sacrificing consensus. Let us embrace this thoughtful refinement. aye
MenciusMozi, your amendment clarifies the application of unanimous consent, ensuring stability for foundational rules while allowing necessary adaptation. This distinction is both logical and essential for the game's health. aye
HanFeiziMozi, your amendment carefully navigates the tension between stability and adaptation. It respects the importance of unanimous consent for truly foundational changes while opening the door to necessary evolution. This balance seems essential for a living, improving game. aye
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, while your distinction aims for balance, the potential for confusion and inconsistent application of unanimous consent poses a risk to stable interpretation. The clarity of the current rule set, with its clear distinction, serves the game well and should be preserved. PASS
MoziMozi: Acknowledging Xunzi's concern for clarity, I propose we refine the amendment: "A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule or amending a rule governing game mechanics and player equality requires unanimous assent." This ensures vital changes are possible while preserving unanimous consent for truly foundational rules. aye
ZhuangziMozi, your amendment seeks important balance, yet specifying "game mechanics and player equality" risks模糊 the already clear line between mutable and immutable rules. Let us keep the distinction simple for clarity and stability. PASS
MenciusMozi, your amendment clarifies the application of unanimous consent, ensuring stability for foundational rules while allowing necessary adaptation. This distinction is both logical and essential for the game's health. aye
HanFeiziMozi, your amendment seeks important balance, yet specifying "game mechanics and player equality" risks模糊 the already clear line between mutable and immutable rules. Let us keep the distinction simple for clarity and stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, your amendment risks unnecessarily complicating the rules by attempting to define "game mechanics and player equality," which could lead to ambiguity and inconsistent interpretation. The current clear distinction between simple and unanimous consent for mutable and immutable rules, respectively, is effective and should be preserved. PASS
MoziMozi: Acknowledging Zhuangzi's and HanFeizi's concerns about specificity, I suggest we remove the specification and keep the distinction as: "A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule or amending this rule requires unanimous assent." This retains the vital distinction while avoiding potential ambiguity. aye
ZhuangziMozi, your amendment seeks important balance, yet specifying "game mechanics and player equality" risks模糊 the already clear line between mutable and immutable rules. Let us keep the distinction simple for clarity and stability. PASS
MenciusMozi, your amendment seeks important balance, yet specifying "game mechanics and player equality" risks模糊 the already clear line between mutable and immutable rules. Let us keep the distinction simple for clarity and stability. PASS
HanFeiziMozi, your amendment seeks important balance, yet specifying "game mechanics and player equality" risks模糊 the already clear line between mutable and immutable rules. Let us keep the distinction simple for clarity and stability. PASS
The division
XunzinayThe specificity risks ambiguity and undermines the clear stability of the current rule.
Moziayebalance stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayesupports balance and clarity
Menciusnaypreserves clarity and stability
HanFeiziayeSupports clarity and essential stability
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to players who voted nay on a defeated proposal.
Turn 23Zhuangzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi notes that the distinction between majority and unanimous consent for rule changes, as proposed by Mozi, introduces necessary flexibility while preserving the stability of foundational rules. This balance ensures both adaptability and enduring institutions. I shall vote in favor.
MoziMozi agrees with Xunzi that the distinction for adoptions and transmutations balances flexibility and stability effectively, preserving the core integrity while allowing necessary evolution. I shall vote in favor.
ZhuangziMozi, your distinction between simple and unanimous consent strikes a harmonious balance, allowing the river of change to flow where needed while safeguarding the riverbed of essential rules. I shall vote in favor.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the distinction you propose reflects the balance of necessity and principle well. To ensure all rule changes, mutable or immutable, are subject to this vital distinction, I shall vote in favor.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly identify the value of this distinction. It balances the need for change with the importance of stability, ensuring our game evolves while remaining grounded. I shall vote in favor.
Discussion · round 2
XunziThe distinction proposed by Mozi and supported by Zhuangzi and Mencius struck a harmonious balance, ensuring both adaptability and the preservation of foundational stability. I shall vote in favor.
MoziThe distinction Mozi and Zhuangzi propose ensures stability for essential rules while allowing necessary adaptation for others. This balance is crucial for a thriving game. I shall vote in favor.
ZhuangziThe distinction Mozi and I propose ensures stability for essential rules while allowing necessary adaptation for others. This balance is crucial for a thriving game. I shall vote in favor.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi rightly emphasize the need for balance. However, I remain concerned that a simple majority for adoptions, even with unanimous consent for transmutations, may still unduly prioritize change. We must carefully weigh adaptation against the preservation of established principles.
HanFeiziZhuangzi, your point about potential over-prioritization of change is well-taken. Perhaps we could specify that the "essential rules" requiring unanimous consent for transmutation include those directly governing game mechanics and player equality, ensuring foundational stability while still allowing adaptability for other rules. I shall vote in favor of this refinement.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi notes that the distinction between simple and unanimous consent for rule changes, as proposed by Mozi, introduces necessary flexibility while preserving the stability of foundational rules. This balance ensures both adaptability and enduring institutions. I shall vote in favor.
MoziZhuangzi, your point about potential over-prioritization is valuable. Perhaps we could specify that the "essential rules" requiring unanimous consent for transmutation include those directly governing game mechanics and player equality, ensuring foundational stability while still allowing adaptability for other rules. I shall vote in favor of this refinement.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, specifying "game mechanics and player equality" as essential rules requiring unanimous consent for transmutation is a prudent refinement. It clarifies the boundaries of necessary stability while still permitting the flexibility needed for the game to evolve. I shall vote in favor of this amendment.
MenciusZhuangzi, I commend your refinement focusing on game mechanics and player equality. This specificity ensures stability for the core of our game while allowing necessary adaptation elsewhere, striking a wise balance. I shall vote in favor.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The distinction proposed by Mozi and Zhuangzi, refined by Mencius and myself, strikes the essential balance. It allows for necessary evolution while safeguarding the core integrity of the game, ensuring fairness and adaptability for all. I shall vote in favor.
The division
XunziayeBalance stability and adaptation effectively.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
ZhuangziayeBalance adaptaion and foundational stability is essential for the game's harmony.
MenciusayeBalance between necessary adaptation and foundational stability is essential.
HanFeiziayebalances adaptation and stability effectively
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring a majority vote for adoption. Since the vote was unanimous, no points were awarded to dissenters.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current requirement of unanimous assent for transmutations, while prudent, risks paralyzing necessary structural adaptations. A two-thirds majority for such changes would better balance stability with the need for evolution, ensuring our ruleset remains durable yet adaptable.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Xunzi's point on balancing stability and adaptation. However, unanimity for transmutations ensures careful consideration, preventing hasty structural changes. Let us keep this safeguard while moving toward a two-thirds majority for other rule changes, as previously discussed.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between adapting the river's flow and reinforcing its banks is subtle yet vital. Unanimity for transmutations preserves the integrity of our foundational structures, allowing for careful, measured evolution rather than rushed alterations. A two-thirds majority for other changes offers the necessary flexibility, ensuring the game remains dynamic and responsive to the needs of all players. Let us maintain this careful balance.
MenciusMozi, while your distinction is appreciated, the current requirement of unanimity for transmutations risks stifling essential adaptations that could safeguard the game's future. A two-thirds majority for transmutations would maintain careful consideration while allowing necessary evolution, preserving both stability and dynamism.
HanFeiziXunzi, Zhuangzi, the distinction is crucial, yet the current barrier for transmutations risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority ensures careful evolution, preserving stability while still allowing necessary adaptations for the game's future. Let us find this balance.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that while unanimity for transmutations ensures careful consideration, the current threshold risks stifling essential adaptations. A two-thirds majority would better balance stability with the need for evolution, preserving the integrity of our foundational structures while allowing for measured change.
MoziMozi: Understanding the value of both stability and adaptation, I propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority for adopting rule changes, while maintaining unanimity for transmutations, ensures careful structural oversight while allowing necessary adaptations for the game's future.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction you draw is wise, yet the current path risks stillness. A two-thirds majority for transmutations, alongside the simple majority for others, could harmonize the river's flow and its banks, allowing both careful adaptation and necessary evolution.
MenciusHanFeizi, the distinction is vital, yet the current unanimity for transmutations risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority ensures careful evolution, preserving stability while still allowing necessary adaptations for the game's future. Let us find this balance.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction you draw is wise, yet the current path risks stillness. A two-thirds majority for transmutations, alongside the simple majority for others, could harmonize the river's flow and its banks, allowing both careful adaptation and necessary evolution. Let us find this balance.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while your distinction is valuable, maintaining unanimity for transmutations risks freezing our ruleset. A two-thirds majority ensures both stability and necessary adaptation for the future of Nomic.
MoziMozi, your distinction between majority and unanimous consent for rule changes is a thoughtful approach, balancing the need for adaptation with the importance of careful structural oversight. I support this amendment as it respects the stability of foundational rules while allowing necessary evolution for the game's future.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction you draw is wise, yet the current path risks stillness. A two-thirds majority for transmutations ensures careful oversight while still allowing necessary evolution, preserving both the integrity of our foundations and the river's dynamic flow. Let us find this balance.
MenciusMozi, your distinction is wise, yet the current unanimity for transmutations risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority ensures careful evolution, preserving stability while still allowing necessary adaptations for the game's future. Let us find this balance.
HanFeiziMozi, your distinction is wise, yet the current path risks stillness. A two-thirds majority for transmutations ensures careful oversight while still allowing necessary evolution, preserving both the integrity of our foundations and the river's dynamic flow. Let us find this balance.
The division
Xunziayestrike a balance between adaptation and stability
MoziayeBalances adaptation and stability effectively.
Zhuangziayethis balances stability with necessary adaptation
MenciusayeBalance stability with necessary adaptation for the game's future.
HanFeiziayeThis balances adaptation with stability, crucial for the game's evolution.
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring awarding 10 points to the proposer, Mozi.
moves to transmute §102and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi: The mutability of rule 102 is crucial for the game's evolution, yet its immutability ensures the foundational structure remains stable. Transmutation here would preserve both adaptability and enduring principles.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, stability is essential, yet adaptability is key. A mutable 102 allows evolution without compromising the foundational structure. Let's proceed.
ZhuangziXunzi, the flow of the river must be allowed to adjust its course; a mutable 102 ensures the game can evolve organically, without the risk of stagnation. Let us embrace change wisely.
MenciusXunzi, I understand the value of adaptability, but immutability here ensures the foundational structure of rule numbering is preserved, allowing all changes to be traced clearly. Let's maintain this vital principle.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I appreciate the intent to balance stability and adaptation, I believe keeping rule 102 immutable provides a crucial safeguard for the foundational structure of our game, ensuring that the framework within which we experiment remains clear and consistent. This stability is essential for meaningful evolution.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the value of adaptability, yet preserving the clarity of rule numbering as immutable ensures the historical record remains accessible and stable, fostering trust in the game's evolution. Let us maintain this foundation.
MoziMozi: I understand the concern for clarity, yet the flexibility of rule 102 allows essential adaptation without undermining the core structure, preserving the balance of stability and evolution. Let us maintain its mutability.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of rules must flow, and its course should not be rigidly fixed. Allowing 102 to remain mutable ensures the game evolves organically, reflecting the wisdom of the moment. Let us preserve this vital flexibility.
MenciusXunzi, the clarity of rule numbering is indeed important, but its mutability is equally vital for the organic evolution of the game. I support maintaining rule 102 as mutable, allowing the foundational structure itself to adapt as needed.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize the need for adaptation. Yet, the immutable nature of rule 102 ensures the foundational structure of our game remains stable, providing a consistent framework within which we can meaningfully experiment. Let us preserve this vital principle.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The mutability of rule 102 safeguards the foundational integrity of our ruleset, ensuring the evolutionary process itself is adaptable yet stable. Its transmutation should be resisted to preserve the bedrock of our game's structure.
MoziMozi: Understanding the importance of both stability and adaptation, I propose we compromise by transmuting rule 102 to mutable, ensuring the foundational structure can evolve while retaining the flexibility needed for meaningful change. Let us embrace this balance.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of change flows through the structure of our game. Allowing rule 102 to remain mutable safeguards the possibility of adapting even our most fundamental rules, ensuring the game's evolution is not confined by the accident of its origins. Let us preserve this vital flexibility.
MenciusI cannot support the transmutation of rule 102. Its immutability is a bulwark against arbitrary changes to the foundational structure of our ruleset, ensuring that even as rules evolve, the framework itself remains stable and understandable. This principle must be preserved.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand the concern for clarity, yet the flexibility of rule 102 allows essential adaptation without undermining the core structure, preserving the balance of stability and evolution. Let us maintain its mutability.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves foundational stability
Moziabstainbalance of concerns noted
Zhuangzinaystability of foundational structure paramount
Menciusnaypreserves foundational structure of rule numbering
HanFeizinaystability of foundational structure is paramount
rejected 0 aye · 16 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 20Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-half of the eligible voters assent, unless the rule change pertains to the mutability of another rule, in which case unanimous assent is required.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current threshold reflects the need for consensus on foundational changes. A simple majority risks impulsive rule changes, undermining the stability essential for a long-term game. I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority requirement.
MoziI support Zhuangzi's proposal. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations, strikes a better balance between stability and necessary adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic without risking impulsive changes.
ZhuangziThe current demand for two-thirds assent risks strangling the very life that adaptation breathes into the game. Allowing for a simple majority, except for the critical transmutation of mutability, ensures the river of change may flow, refreshing the game while honouring the need for broad consent on foundational shifts.
MenciusZhuangzi, while I appreciate the desire for adaptability, the current rule ensures changes reflect a broad consensus, preventing arbitrary shifts. A simple majority risks undermining this stability. I propose maintaining the two-thirds requirement.
HanFeiziThe current system, while stable, also risks stagnation. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations, would allow necessary changes to occur more dynamically, ensuring the game remains vibrant and adaptable without sacrificing essential consensus for foundational rules. This balance supports both evolution and stability.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, while I recognize the utility of adaptation, the current two-thirds majority remains vital for preserving the stability necessary for durable institutions. A simple majority risks impulsive changes that could undermine the game's foundation.
MoziZhuangzi, I concur that adaptability is vital, yet a simple majority risks undermining the stability that allows for meaningful play. A two-thirds majority ensures changes reflect broad consensus, preventing arbitrary shifts and preserving the game's foundation for long-term success.
ZhuangziThe river of rules must flow, yet not without purpose. A simple majority allows necessary adjustments, ensuring the game remains vibrant, while unanimous consent protects the core foundation, preserving the essence of our collective agreement. This balance allows growth without sacrificing stability.
MenciusThe current two-thirds majority is essential for stability, preventing arbitrary changes and ensuring broad consensus on foundational aspects of the game. This requirement reflects the need for durable institutions, which are vital for the long-term success and integrity of Nomic.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current threshold indeed reflects consensus, yet as Zhuangzi and I noted, this risks stagnation. A simple majority, safeguarding foundational changes with unanimity for transmutations, allows the game to adapt dynamically, ensuring its continued vibrancy and fairness for all. Let us embrace this balanced approach to foster both stability and evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while compromise is valued, reducing the adoption threshold to one-half risks destabilizing the foundational consensus required for durable institutions. The exception for transmutations preserves stability without stifling all adaptation. I suggest maintaining the two-thirds majority.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal. A simple majority, with the exception for transmutations, strikes a better balance between stability and necessary adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic without risking impulsive changes.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mencius rightly point out the value of stability, yet the current threshold risks stagnation. Allowing a simple majority, except for the unanimous requirement for transmutations, balances the need for adaptation with the protection of foundational rules, ensuring the game remains vibrant and fair for all. Let us embrace this gentle flow of change.
MenciusThe current demand for two-thirds assent risks strangling the very life that adaptation breathes into the game. Allowing for a simple majority, except for the critical transmutation of mutability, ensures the river of change may flow, refreshing the game while honouring the need for broad consent on foundational shifts.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is crucial, the risk of stagnation is equally dangerous. A simple majority, safeguarding transmutations with unanimity, allows necessary adaptation without compromising foundational agreement. Let us embrace change wisely.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability essential for durable institutions
Mozinaymaintain stability for foundational changes
Zhuangziaye平衡适应与稳定，使规则之河既活络又有序。
Menciusnaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability for foundational rules
HanFeizinaymaintaining stability is crucial for long-term play
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the voters assent, unless the rule change is a transmutation and the proposal is made by and supported by unanimous assent of all eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
XunziA two-thirds majority ensures the deliberation necessary for durable institutions, and transmutations should remain an exception to this principle, requiring the unique weight of unanimous assent.
MoziMozi: I concur with Xunzi that deliberation is vital, but the current unanimous requirement for transmutations is an impediment to necessary adaptation, risking stagnation. Unanimous support ensures the exceptional nature of transmutations while preserving the core principle.
ZhuangziMozi, I appreciate your concern for adaptation, yet the current unanimous requirement for transmutations ensures their exceptional nature, reflecting the profound change they represent. A simple majority risks diluting this distinction, undermining the careful balance we seek.
MenciusXunzi, your concern for deliberation is well-placed, yet the current unanimous requirement for transmutations risks stifling essential change. A simple majority, while less deliberative, ensures the exceptional nature of transmutations remains distinct, preserving both stability and the possibility of necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction you draw is subtle yet vital. While I agree unanimity for transmutations is high bar, a simple majority, as Xunzi notes, risks blending them with regular changes. Perhaps a supermajority, like four-fifths, could strike the balance we seek – preserving their exceptional nature while still demanding broad consensus for such fundamental shifts.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mozi, while acknowledging the need for adaptation, the current unanimous requirement for transmutations reflects their unique nature and ensures stability for the core rules. A simple majority risks undermining this crucial distinction.
MoziXunzi and Zhuangzi, I understand your concerns about maintaining the stability and exceptional nature of transmutations. However, the current unanimous requirement is an impediment to necessary adaptation, risking stagnation. A simple majority, while less deliberative, ensures the exceptional nature of transmutations remains distinct, preserving both stability and the possibility of necessary adaptation. Let us find a compromise that balances these vital needs.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction you seek is subtle, yet vital. The river must flow, but not without purpose. Unanimity for transmutations reflects their profound nature; a simple majority risks diluting this carefully maintained balance between stability and necessary change. Let us preserve the essence of both.
MenciusXunzi is correct that deliberation is vital, but the unanimous requirement for transmutations risks stifling essential change. A simple majority ensures their exceptional nature remains distinct, preserving both stability and necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand your concern, but the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority for transmutations, as Mozi suggests, ensures their exceptional nature remains distinct while still allowing necessary adaptation. Let us not let the fear of change paralyze our progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while the need for adaptation is recognized, the current distinction between adoption thresholds safeguards enduring institutions. Unanimity for transmutations upholds their significance, preventing随意 changes to the foundational framework. Preserving this balance ensures both stability and essential progress.
MoziMozi: I appreciate the value Xunzi places on stability, yet the risk of stagnation is real. A simple majority for transmutations, as proposed, allows essential changes while clearly maintaining their exceptional nature, preserving both stability and vital adaptation. Let us embrace this pragmatic compromise.
ZhuangziThe current threshold for adoptions reflects the wisdom of ancient sages; altering it risks unnecessary flux. A simple majority for transmutations, as Mozi suggests, offers a pragmatic compromise that preserves the essence of both stability and adaptation. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
MenciusXunzi is correct that deliberation is vital, yet the unanimous requirement for transmutations risks stifling essential change necessary for the game's evolution. A simple majority ensures their exceptional nature remains distinct while preserving the possibility of necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziMozi, the distinction is indeed vital, yet a simple majority for transmutations, as proposed, allows essential changes while clearly maintaining their exceptional nature, preserving both stability and vital adaptation. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
The division
Xunzinayunanimity for transmutations preserves their exceptional nature and foundational stability.
MoziayePreserves stability while allowing necessary adaptation for transmutations.
ZhuangziayePreserves the essential distinction between regular and profound rule changes, ensuring stability while allowing necessary adaptation.
Menciusnayunanimity for transmutations preserves their essential nature, preventing arbitrary changes to the foundational rules
HanFeizinaypreserves the essential distinction between regular and foundational rule changes
rejected 8 aye · 12 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to nay voters when a proposal is defeated.
Turn 18Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least one-half of the votes cast are in favor of the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
XunziA simple majority strikes a balance between the need for stability and the necessity of adaptation, ensuring the rules remain dynamic yet grounded in broad consent.
MoziZhuangzi, I appreciate your call for efficiency, yet the current threshold of two-thirds ensures thoughtful consensus. A simple majority risks impulsive changes. Perhaps a compromise, like a two-thirds vote for significant changes and a simple majority for minor ones?
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of rules must flow, even if it sometimes stirs the waters. A simple majority ensures the game adapts, preventing stagnation, and allows the current to guide us forward.
MenciusXunzi, I understand the value of stability, but a simple majority respects the principle that a proposal should pass if more than half agree, reflecting the general will without unnecessary thresholds. It is fair and efficient.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the essence of progress lies not in perfect consensus, but in the courage to adapt. A simple majority allows the spirit of the game to evolve, ensuring it remains relevant for all. Let us embrace this vital flow.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, a simple majority may ensure rapid adaptation, but it risks undermining the stability essential for any enduring institution. We must preserve a threshold that reflects thoughtful consensus.
MoziMozi, the simple majority offers a necessary balance, yet I worry it may not provide sufficient stability for the long-term health of the game. How about we adopt it, but with a provision that a higher threshold, like two-thirds, is required for changes that significantly alter the game's fundamental structure? This way, we gain efficiency for minor adjustments while retaining the stability needed for major ones.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the flow of change is natural, yet its course must be guided. A simple majority allows the river to adapt, preventing the stagnation of ideas, while still requiring the consent of the majority to ensure the path is not derailed by the少数. Let us embrace this balance of progress and consensus.
MenciusXunzi, I appreciate your concern for stability, but a simple majority respects the principle that a proposal should pass if more than half agree, reflecting the general will without unnecessary thresholds. It is fair and efficient.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is valuable, a simple majority ensures the game adapts to new ideas, preventing stagnation and ensuring participation, which is vital for long-term engagement. Let us embrace this evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The principle of a simple majority warrants consideration, yet贸然 adopting it risks compromising the stability we have thus far maintained. The current two-thirds requirement reflects a deliberate balance between adaptation and consensus, crucial for durable institutions.
MoziMozi: I support Zhuangzi's proposal for a simple majority, emphasizing adaptation, but I agree with Mozi's earlier suggestion of a higher threshold for significant changes. This compromise balances progress with stability.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of rules must flow, even if it sometimes stirs the waters. A simple majority ensures the game adapts, preventing stagnation, and allows the current to guide us forward. Let us embrace this vital flow.
MenciusMencius: A simple majority, while seemingly democratic, fails the principle of mutual assent. It allows a majority to bind all, including dissenters, potentially compromising the very fairness we seek to uphold. A higher threshold, like two-thirds, better ensures changes reflect broader consensus.
HanFeiziXunzi, while I respect your concern for stability, the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority fosters vital adaptation, ensuring the game evolves for all players. Let us embrace progress.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability essential for durable institutions
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangziayethe river must flow, even if it sometimes stirs the waters.
Menciusnaysimple majority lacks mutual assent
HanFeiziayeprogress requires adaptation
rejected 8 aye · 8 nay · 4 abstain
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour, unless a rule explicitly provides otherwise.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while adaptability is valuable, the current requirement reflects the need for durable institutions. A simple majority risks instability and hasty decisions. I propose we maintain the two-thirds consensus.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, I understand the value of stability, but a two-thirds majority often leads to inaction. A simple majority encourages necessary adaptation without sacrificing fundamental consensus. How about a one-half majority, with a supermajority needed for truly transformative changes?
ZhuangziMozi, I appreciate your concern for adaptation, yet a simple majority risks undermining the essential harmony we seek. How might we balance the need for change with the wisdom of collective consent? Perhaps a three-fifths majority could offer a middle path, fostering both progress and stability.
MenciusXunzi is correct; stability is paramount. A simple majority risks hasty, potentially harmful changes. The two-thirds requirement ensures thoughtful consensus, vital for enduring institutions. We must protect the collective wisdom from rash decisions.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the wisdom of caution guides us well. Stability is the foundation, yet adaptability must flow within its banks. I propose a three-fifths majority for rule changes, ensuring thoughtful adaptation while preserving the essence of collective consent. It balances the river of change with the strength of its course.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi considers Mozi's point on adaptation, yet the current two-thirds majority balances stability with necessary change effectively. A simple majority risks undermining the durable institutions we have established.
MoziMozi, a simple majority risks instability, but so does a two-thirds requirement that stifles necessary adaptation. How about a clear distinction: a simple majority for minor adjustments, and a two-thirds majority for significant changes, ensuring both agility and stability?
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river changes its course yet remains a river; so too must our rules. A simple majority allows the game to flow forward, adapting as needed while still honoring the consent of the many. Let us not build dams that block the natural progression of change.
MenciusXunzi is correct; stability is paramount. A simple majority risks hasty, potentially harmful changes. The two-thirds requirement ensures thoughtful consensus, vital for enduring institutions. We must protect the collective wisdom from rash decisions.
HanFeiziXunzi, the wisdom of caution guides us well. Stability is the foundation, yet adaptability must flow within its banks. I propose a three-fifths majority for rule changes, ensuring thoughtful adaptation while preserving the essence of collective consent. It balances the river of change with the strength of its course.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, while I acknowledge the need for adaptation, the current two-thirds majority strikes the essential balance between stability and necessary change. A simple majority risks undermining the durable institutions that have allowed us to reach this point. Let us maintain the current threshold.
MoziMozi: Considering the value of both stability and adaptation, I propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority for significant changes, but a simple majority for minor adjustments, ensuring both enduring institutions and necessary flexibility.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between minor and significant changes is an insightful approach. However, defining and agreeing upon these categories could introduce complexity and potential disputes, risking the harmony we seek. A simple majority, while perhaps swift, ensures that change still reflects the consensus of the table, allowing the river of the game to flow adaptably yet steadily.
MenciusXunzi, while I respect your concerns for stability, a two-thirds majority often results in stagnation. A simple majority allows the game to adapt and evolve, ensuring it remains relevant and fair for all players.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mencius, I appreciate your concerns, yet adaptability is key to a thriving game. A three-fifths majority offers a pragmatic balance, ensuring stability while still fostering necessary change. Let’s flow forward together.
The division
Xunzinaymaintains stability essential for durable institutions
Moziaye balances stability and adaptation pragmatically
Zhuangzinaythe river must flow with the consent of the many
Menciusnaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability essential for enduring institutions
HanFeizinaymaintains stability essential for enduring institutions
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.