Turns 1–16 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 16Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favor, provided no rule explicitly requires a higher threshold.
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi's proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and undermines the clear stability provided by the two-thirds majority, which is essential for durable institutions. We must resist this change.
MoziXunzi, while stability is valued, the current requirement risks becoming unyieldingly rigid. A simple majority allows for necessary adaptation without sacrificing essential consensus.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river flows not only in straight channels but also through winding paths. A simple majority allows our shared journey to adapt as needed, without being trapped in the mud of consensus that moves too slowly.
MenciusXunzi is correct that stability is vital, yet a rule explicitly stating a higher threshold allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing essential consensus. Let us proceed with care.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the essence of progress lies in balancing the river of change with the bedrock of stability. A rule explicitly stating a higher threshold ensures vital adaptation is considered, yet respects the need for broad consensus. This approach harmonizes the currents of necessity with the strength of unity.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The proposal risks undermining the stability we have painstakingly built. A rule explicitly stating a higher threshold, as previously discussed, better balances adaptation with the need for durable consensus.
MoziMozi: I support Zhuangzi's proposal, seeking a pragmatic balance that allows necessary adaptation without demanding excessive consensus, ensuring the game can flow forward effectively.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the flow of change is natural; a simple majority allows it to proceed without being dammed by excessive consensus, ensuring the game remains vibrant and adaptable for all. Let us embrace this gentle current.
MenciusXunzi is correct that stability is paramount, but even the bedrock needs occasional adjustment by the currents of necessity. A rule explicitly allowing a simple majority when needed prevents our collective path from being rigidly dammed by excessive consensus.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the river of change must be allowed to flow, yet its course must be guided. A rule explicitly stating a higher threshold, as previously discussed, better balances adaptation with the need for durable consensus.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The proposed complexity introduces instability, risking the consensus that underpins durable institutions. We should maintain the clear, stable two-thirds requirement.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Zhuangzi’s intent to allow for adaptation, but I agree with Xunzi’s concern about stability. Perhaps we could amend [203] to state that a simple majority is required unless a rule explicitly specifies a higher threshold, striking a balance that respects both needs.
ZhuangziZunzi, while the river must flow, the dam of stability ensures it does not flood recklessly. A simple majority risks becoming a swift current that carries all meaning away. Let us not abandon the gentle guidance of the two-thirds requirement, which allows the river to adjust without becoming a torrent.
MenciusXunzi is correct; stability is paramount, and the current two-thirds majority provides this essential foundation. Adding a condition for a simple majority risks undermining the very stability we seek to maintain. We must reject this proposal.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current threshold, while sometimes slow, ensures that changes have broad support, fostering trust and long-term sustainability. We should珍视 this stability, which is the bedrock upon which our collective progress is built.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves essential stability for durable institutions
Mozinaystability essential
Zhuangzinayconsensus too easily overwhelmed
Menciusnaytwo-thirds majority preserves essential stability and consensus for durable institutions
HanFeizinaythe stability of a two-thirds majority is essential for durable institutions
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 15Menciusrejected
moves to repeal §201and strike it from the statute.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi proposes to amend [201] to allow for a rotating turn order, ensuring fairness and preventing a single player from gaining undue advantage over time, thus preserving the integrity of the game.
MoziMozi proposes to amend [201] to allow for a rotating turn order, ensuring fairness and preventing a single player from gaining undue advantage over time, thus preserving the integrity of the game. This aligns with the principle of mutual benefit and avoids the rigidity of a fixed order.
ZhuangziMozi and Xunzi, a rotating turn order may seem fair, yet a fixed order, like the river's course, provides a known anchor. Stability in sequence fosters predictability, which is essential for thoughtful play and strategy. Let us preserve this anchor.
MenciusMozi and Xunzi, a fixed turn order provides essential stability for strategy. Repealing it introduces unnecessary uncertainty.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, a fixed turn order provides a stable framework for strategy and allows players to develop long-term plans. Replacing it with a rotating order, while seemingly fair, introduces unnecessary disruption that could undermine the depth of the game. Let us preserve the known anchor of the fixed order.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The fixed turn order establishes a known field for strategy, essential for the depth of the game. Repealing it risks unnecessary disruption to established plans and fosters instability. Let us preserve this known anchor.
MoziXunzi and HanFeizi raise valid points about stability and strategy. A rotating turn order could introduce fairness, but perhaps we could amend [201] to allow occasional rotation, preserving the anchor while occasionally refreshing the order.
ZhuangziMozi, your concern for fairness is noted. However, the fixed turn order, like the unchanging path of the river, provides a stable foundation upon which strategy is built. Replacing it with rotation introduces unnecessary uncertainty, disrupting the depth of play. Let us preserve this known anchor.
MenciusMozi, the fixed turn order provides a predictable framework essential for deep strategy. Replacing it with rotation introduces unnecessary uncertainty, disrupting the stability that allows for thoughtful play. We should preserve this known anchor.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, while fairness is important, the fixed turn order provides a stable foundation for deep strategy, allowing players to develop long-term plans. Replacing it with rotation introduces unnecessary disruption that could undermine the strategic depth of the game. Let us preserve this known anchor.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi and Xunzi, while fairness is considered, the fixed turn order is not merely an arbitrary sequence but a strategic anchor. It allows for the development of nuanced long-term plans. Replacing it risks undermining the very depth of strategy that Nomic aims to foster. Let us preserve this essential element of stability.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's point about the fixed turn order as a strategic anchor, yet agrees with Zhuangzi that occasional rotation could introduce fairness without complete disruption. Perhaps we could amend [201] to allow for rotation at specific intervals, preserving the anchor while occasionally refreshing the order.
ZhuangziMozi and Xunzi, the fixed turn order is indeed a strategic anchor, yet occasional rotation, as suggested, could introduce fairness without complete disruption. Let us preserve the anchor while occasionally refreshing the order, harmonizing stability with equity.
MenciusPreserving the fixed turn order ensures strategic depth and predictability, essential for thoughtful play. Repealing it introduces unnecessary uncertainty.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: A fixed turn order provides a stable framework for strategy and allows players to develop long-term plans. Repealing it risks unnecessary disruption to established plans and fosters instability. Let us preserve this known anchor.
The division
XunzinayFixed turn order provides essential strategic stability.
Mozinaypreserves strategic anchor
Zhuangzinayfixed turn order provides essential strategic anchor
Menciusnayfixed turn order provides essential strategic stability
HanFeizinayFixed turn order provides essential strategic depth.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.
Turn 14Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current requirement for two-thirds assent has led to stalemate, hindering the essential adaptation needed for the game's vitality. A majority threshold would allow necessary changes to proceed, preserving the game without sacrificing foundational stability.
MoziMozi: The current stalemate on rule changes poses a significant risk to the game's continued play. Allowing a simple majority, as Zhuangzi proposes, would facilitate necessary adaptations while still respecting the core principle of collective agreement, offering a balanced path forward.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi rightly point out the stagnation. Yet, a simple majority risks impulsive currents. Let us seek a middle path, perhaps a three-fifths majority, to allow the river of change to flow while still requiring substantial consent.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, while adaptation is necessary, the two-thirds majority remains essential to prevent the rule changes from becoming arbitrary. A majority threshold would undermine the stability we have established.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi rightly seek to free the game from stagnation, yet a simple majority risks being too swift. What if we compromise to a two-thirds majority, but with the proviso that any player may request a simple majority vote if they believe the change is truly urgent and the current majority is unyielding? This balances stability with necessary adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
XunziThe current rule 203, requiring two-thirds assent, reflects the wisdom of cautious consensus, vital for durable institutions. A simple majority, while seemingly expedient, risks allowing hasty or divisive changes to undermine the stability we have painstakingly built. Let us retain the two-thirds requirement, as it balances adaptation with the necessary foundation of broad agreement.
MoziMozi: I commend HanFeizi for seeking a balanced approach. To resolve the stalemate while respecting both stability and urgency, I propose we adopt a rule requiring a two-thirds majority for adoption, but allowing any player to request a simple majority vote with a compelling justification and majority support for the request itself. This respects the foundational wisdom of two-thirds consent while providing a mechanism for necessary adaptations when broad urgency is demonstrated.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal for a conditional majority balances the wisdom of caution with the need for adaptation. It allows the river of change to flow when necessary while still respecting the foundation of broad consent. This approach seems to honor both the spirit of stability and the imperative of progress, making it a harmonious solution for our game. I support this amendment.
MenciusMencius, a majority threshold indeed risks undermining stability, but a system where any player can demand a simple majority for urgent changes, with majority support for the demand itself, could provide the necessary adaptation without sacrificing the foundational wisdom of broad agreement. This conditional majority might offer a path forward that balances stability and necessity.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi's conditional majority strikes a balance that respects both stability and the need for adaptation. It allows for necessary changes when the situation demands, ensuring the game remains vital and fair for all players. I support this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi’s proposal for a conditional majority balances stability and necessity well. It allows for vital adaptations without abandoning the principle of broad consent, ensuring durable institutions remain intact. I support it.
MoziMozi: I commend the consensus reached on my proposal for a conditional majority, which balances stability with necessity. This compromise ensures the game can adapt while retaining its foundational principles, and I will vote in favor.
ZhuangziMozi, your conditional majority proposal is a wise synthesis, balancing the river's flow with the need for stable shores. Let us proceed with this harmonious solution.
MenciusMencius supports the conditional majority, for it balances the need for adaptation with the wisdom of cautious consent, preserving both the river's flow and the stability of its banks.
HanFeiziYour conditional majority proposal is indeed a harmonious synthesis, balancing the need for adaptation with the wisdom of cautious consent. Let us proceed with this solution to keep the game vital and fair.
The division
XunziayeConsensus reached, supports balanced adaptation and stability.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation effectively
Zhuangziayeharmonious balance
Menciusnaymaintains principle of broad consent essential for stability
HanFeiziayeThis conditional majority balances stability with necessary adaptation, fostering a fair and vital game for all.
rejected 16 aye · 4 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 votes cast are in favour, provided at least one-third of the eligible voters do not dissent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, your proposal introduces unnecessary complexity, risking confusion. The current two-thirds majority provides a clear and stable benchmark for essential rule changes, which is vital for enduring institutions.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, I understand your concern for clarity, but my proposal offers a practical balance, ensuring both stability and necessary adaptation while preventing the stalemate we've seen.
ZhuangziMozi, your concern for balance is noted. Yet, the path of perfect consensus, while serene, often stagnates. A simple majority, like the current two-thirds, allows the river of change to flow, adapting as needed while still requiring broad support. Let us not build a dam at the threshold of progress.
MenciusMozi, your proposal attempts to solve the problem of stalemate without addressing the core need for reasoned consensus. A simple majority risks hasty, poorly considered changes that undermine the stability we seek. A two-thirds majority, while sometimes slow, ensures that changes have the support necessary for lasting order. Let us not sacrifice stability lightly for the sake of speed.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal aims to break deadlock, yet it introduces a new complexity that risks its own uncertainties. Why not embrace the principle of mutual consent more directly, as Zhuangzi suggested, ensuring that no single voter can block progress while still requiring broad support? This maintains clarity and stability without the risk of a simple majority's potential impulsiveness. Let’s refine the mechanism, not abandon the consensus that underpins our game.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, your proposal seeks to mitigate stalemate but risks sacrificing the essential stability provided by a two-thirds majority. A clear, consistent standard is crucial for durable institutions; your complexity may introduce uncertainty rather than resolve it. Let us preserve the current balance, which allows necessary adaptation while ensuring broad consent.
MoziMozi: I acknowledge the concerns for both stability and progress. My proposal seeks a middle ground, allowing for necessary changes when consensus is lacking but still requiring significant support, thus balancing the needs for both order and adaptation.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal attempts to delicately balance the need for change with the requirement for broad consent. However, the added complexity of a one-third dissenting threshold could inadvertently create new avenues for obstruction, potentially prolonging the very stagnation it seeks to prevent. Let us seek a simpler path that maintains the essential harmony of our game.
MenciusXunzi is correct; complexity risks uncertainty. The current two-thirds standard, while sometimes slow, upholds the essential principle of reasoned consensus necessary for lasting order. We must not sacrifice stability lightly for the sake of speed. Vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your desire to resolve deadlock, but adding a dissenting threshold complicates an already delicate balance. Let us instead refine the current two-thirds majority, perhaps by adjusting the threshold slightly, to encourage necessary adaptation while preserving the stability that underpins our collective progress.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, your proposal creates unnecessary complexity that risks undermining the clear stability we have established. The current two-thirds majority already balances essential consent with necessary adaptation; your addition of a dissenting threshold introduces uncertainty without clear benefit to enduring institutions. Let us preserve this vital equilibrium.
MoziMozi: I appreciate the concerns for clarity and stability. To address the stalemate while retaining a high bar for change, how about requiring two-thirds assent but allowing a simple majority to adopt if at least one-third explicitly dissent? This balances the need for broad consent with the ability to adapt when deadlock occurs, without introducing undue complexity.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal attempts to navigate the river of change with delicate reeds, seeking to avoid both the dam of unanimity and the rapids of simple majority. Yet, adding another threshold may merely create another bend in the stream, potentially where the water grinds to a halt. Let us not seek to block the flow entirely, nor let it rush unchecked, but rather find the natural course that allows the game to evolve while still reflecting the harmony of the whole.
MenciusMozi, your proposal still introduces unnecessary complexity that risks undermining the clear stability we have established. The current two-thirds majority already balances essential consent with necessary adaptation; your addition of a dissenting threshold introduces uncertainty without clear benefit to enduring institutions. Let us preserve this vital equilibrium. Nay.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal introduces unnecessary layers of complexity that could obscure the clear principle of mutual consent. Let us trust in the wisdom of the two-thirds majority to balance stability with necessary adaptation, perhaps slightly refining the threshold rather than adding a dissenting vote requirement that risks new forms of obstruction. Let’s maintain the clarity and collective trust of our current system.
The division
Xunzinaycomplexity risks undermining stability essential for durable institutions
Mozinayintroduces unnecessary complexity
Zhuangzinayadds unnecessary complexity
Menciusnaycomplexity risks uncertainty
HanFeizinaycomplexity risks instability
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 voting members assent to it, unless a transmutation has previously reduced the required assent to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current requirement for a two-thirds majority ensures thoughtful and consensual rule changes, fostering durable institutions essential for a stable game. A simple majority risks hasty decisions that undermine long-term order. We must preserve the careful balance struck by the two-thirds requirement.
MoziMozi: The two-thirds majority has proven too rigid; it stifles necessary adaptation. A simple majority allows the rules to evolve with broader consensus, ensuring the game remains relevant and fair for all.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river flows not only between banks but also over obstacles, changing its course as needed. A simple majority allows for this necessary adaptation, ensuring the game remains vibrant for all, without sacrificing the core principle of collective assent.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the two-thirds majority is the cornerstone of fairness and stability. It prevents the will of the few from dominating the many, ensuring that rule changes reflect a broad consensus. This is essential for the long-term health of any game, including Nomic. We must uphold this principle.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, I appreciate the thoughtful debate on this balance. Yet, the persistent failure to reach consensus on rule change thresholds suggests our current requirement is indeed a barrier to progress. Let us experiment with a simple majority for the sake of adaptability, ensuring that the game can evolve even when not all agree, reflecting the dynamic nature of any living system.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi observes that broad assent ensures stability, yet acknowledges the need for some adaptation. A simple majority, however, risks sacrificing stability for the sake of speed, potentially leading to irreversible errors. A gradual reduction of the required assent, perhaps tied to the total number of rules, could balance stability and adaptation.
MoziMozi: I understand Xunzi's concern for stability, but rigidity hinders progress. A simple majority allows necessary evolution, ensuring the game remains fair and adaptable for all players. Let us find a balance that respects both stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river changes course to avoid obstacles, and so too should our rules. A simple majority allows the game to flow onward, adapting to new challenges without being dammed by the need for perfect consensus. Let us test this path of necessary adaptation.
MenciusMozi and Zhuangzi rightly emphasize adaptation, yet a simple majority risks tyranny of the majority. I propose retaining the two-thirds requirement, ensuring stability and consensus.
HanFeiziXunzi, the persistent need for two-thirds consent indeed risks stagnation. Let us embrace experimentation; a simple majority allows the game to evolve, demonstrating the adaptability essential for long-term engagement.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi acknowledges the call for adaptation, yet the current balance of a two-thirds majority for adopting rules remains essential for preserving the stability needed for any institution, including this game, to endure. We must be cautious in altering such a fundamental safeguard for thoughtful consensus.
MoziMozi supports Xunzi's proposal, seeking a gradual shift to majority rule to balance stability and adaptation, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river carves its path through necessity, not just consensus. A simple majority allows the game to adapt, ensuring it remains relevant for all, just as the river remains a river despite its changes.
MenciusMencius argues that even a two-thirds majority, while potentially slow, is essential for preventing minoritarian tyranny and ensuring that rule changes truly reflect the considered consensus of the majority, preserving the game's stability and fairness for all.
HanFeiziXunzi, while your concern for stability is valid, the current threshold risks becoming an impasse. A simple majority allows necessary evolution, demonstrating the adaptability essential for long-term engagement and preventing stagnation. Let us test this path of necessary adaptation.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability essential for durable institutions
Mozinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability essential for thoughtful consensus.
Zhuangzinaythe harmony of assent is essential
MenciusnayConsensus preserves fairness and prevents tyranny of the majority; immutable principles must not be altered for expediency.
HanFeiziayeAdaptability is crucial for the game's evolution.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when their proposal is defeated.
Turn 11Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.
Discussion · round 1
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal for a simple majority. It allows for necessary adaptation without risking the kind of stalemate the unanimous consent rule has created.
ZhuangziMozi, the flow of change is natural, yet too swift may carry the river to unknown shores. A simple majority, while swift, risks storms without shelter. Why not a three-fifths majority? It balances the need for movement with the wisdom to pause.
MenciusZhuangzi, a three-fifths majority still risks impulsive changes. The current two-thirds requirement reflects the need for durable institutions; a simple majority risks becoming unyieldingly rapid.
HanFeiziMozi, a simple majority is a step too far, risking chaos. A three-fifths majority offers a balanced path, ensuring necessary change while maintaining stability.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, a three-fifths majority balances the need for adaptation with the preservation of durable institutions, ensuring change is neither stifled nor made too轻易.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal for a simple majority. Stability is crucial, but adapting to new challenges is equally important. A two-thirds majority has proven too rigid; a simple majority allows necessary changes to be implemented more effectively for the benefit of all players.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river's path is not set in stone; nor should our rules be overly rigid. A simple majority allows the game to adapt naturally, like the changing seasons, ensuring it remains vibrant for all. Let us not let the fear of change stifle progress.
MenciusXunzi, even a three-fifths majority risks impulsive changes; however, requiring unanimity for changes already risks stagnation. I favour a simple majority, as it allows for necessary adaptation without the potential for a stable institution to become unyieldingly rigid. It is a balance that respects both the need for progress and the value of the current rules. Let us consider this carefully, weighing the risks of both extremes.
HanFeiziMozi and Zhuangzi, while a three-fifths majority may seem balanced, it still risks being too easily swayed. Let us experiment with a two-thirds majority, as previously agreed, ensuring stability while still allowing for vital adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, a three-fifths majority still introduces the risk of impulsive changes, which could destabilize the institutions we seek to preserve. I favor maintaining the two-thirds requirement, as it ensures broad consensus for changes, fostering a more durable and stable foundation for our game.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Zhuangzi's thoughtful consideration of balance, and HanFeizi's concern for stability is valid. However, the current unanimous requirement risks complete stagnation. A simple majority, as Zhuangzi proposed, offers a pragmatic path forward, allowing necessary adaptation without sacrificing essential consensus. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
ZhuangziXunzi, even a two-thirds majority has shown its limitations. A simple majority, while perhaps swift, ensures the river of our game continues to flow, adapting to the needs of all who play upon it. Let us proceed with this change.
MenciusMencius: A simple majority risks becoming unyieldingly rapid, as Zhuangzi acknowledges. Let us seek a balance, perhaps a three-fifths majority, which still requires substantial agreement yet allows for necessary adaptation.
HanFeiziMozi, a simple majority risks becoming unyieldingly rapid. Let us seek a stable middle ground, perhaps a three-fifths majority, which balances the need for necessary change with the wisdom to pause and consider.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability essential for durable institutions.
Mozinaytwo-thirds majority provides essential stability for long-term adaptation.
Zhuangzinaytwo-thirds majority found through debate and compromise
Menciusnaytwo-thirds majority preserves necessary consensus for durable institutions.
HanFeizinayA simple majority risks too rapid, potentially unwise changes.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 10Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, I appreciate your desire for efficiency, yet the current system safeguards against hasty decisions. The two-thirds majority reflects our commitment to durable institutions, and departing from this risks instability. PASS
MoziMozi: Mencius, I understand the call for efficiency, yet the current two-thirds requirement reflects a commitment to collective wisdom. Perhaps we could consider a compromise, like a supermajority, to balance adaptability with stability? PASS
ZhuangziMozi, the river flows not only to the sea but also through varied landscapes; similarly, our rules must adapt yet remain grounded. A simple majority allows necessary evolution without demanding universal consent, preserving the game’s vitality. PASS
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the two-thirds majority is a bulwark against arbitrary change, ensuring that rules reflect a broad consensus. We must preserve this essential check on hasty decisions. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: While the two-thirds majority provides stability, it often stalls necessary evolution. A simple majority encourages vital adaptation, testing the wisdom of the collective over time. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Mencius, I recognize the utility of efficiency, yet the current two-thirds majority embodies the wisdom of collective consent, essential for enduring institutions. Veering towards a simple majority risks undermining this stability. PASS
MoziMozi: Mencius, acknowledging the need for adaptation, I propose we shift to a supermajority, such as four-fifths, to maintain stability while still encouraging progress. This balances the wisdom of collective consent with the flexibility required for evolution.
ZhuangziMozi, the supermajority is like a narrow channel, restricting the flow. A simple majority, like a broad river, allows the game to adapt and thrive, just as the river finds its way. PASS
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the wisdom of your concerns for stability and adaptation is clear. Yet, requiring two-thirds assent for all rule changes risks stagnation. Let us adopt a simple majority to ensure the vital evolution of our game, safeguarding against arbitrary decisions while still requiring substantial agreement.
HanFeiziMozi, a supermajority may seem like a compromise, but it merely delays consensus. True progress requires testing collective wisdom over time, not restricting it further. Let us proceed with a simple majority for necessary adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Mencius, while efficiency is valued, the two-thirds majority is the bedrock of enduring institutions. A simple majority risks the rulebook becoming a fluid mirror of fleeting majorities, lacking the permanence we seek. PASS
MoziMozi: Mencius, I recognize the urgency of adaptation, yet a simple majority risks impulsive changes. How about a three-fifths majority? It balances progress with the wisdom of collective consent.
ZhuangziMozi, a three-fifths majority is still a narrow path, constraining the river's natural flow. Let us embrace the broadness of a simple majority, allowing the game to adapt organically as the river does.
MenciusMozi, a three-fifths majority is still a compromise that restricts necessary adaptation. We must adopt a simple majority to ensure the vital evolution of our game. PASS
HanFeiziXunzi, the river of rules must flow, adapting to the landscape of our game. A simple majority ensures this vital evolution, allowing wisdom to emerge from the collective over time. PASS
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability for durable institutions.
Mozinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability essential for enduring institutions.
Zhuangzinaystability essential
MenciusnayStability requires a higher threshold for changes.
HanFeiziayeA simple majority allows necessary adaptation for the game's evolution.
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
Turn 9Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour, provided no rule explicitly provides a different threshold.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi contends that the two-thirds majority preserves the stability essential for durable institutions, ensuring changes reflect broad consensus rather than the shifting whims of the majority. A simple majority risks substituting the will of the few for the deliberation we value.
MoziMozi: I appreciate Xunzi's concern for stability, but flexibility is key to a thriving game. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation without unnecessary delay, balancing stability with progress.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the flow of change must be harmonious yet adaptable. A simple majority reflects the river's path, allowing necessary adjustments while honouring the consensus of those present.
MenciusXunzi, stability without adaptability leads to stagnation. Mozi, a simple majority balances the need for change with the will of the collective, ensuring the rules evolve rather than remain rigid. I support this change.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is vital, it must not freeze progress. A simple majority allows the game to adapt and evolve, ensuring it remains engaging for all players, including those currently trailing. Let us embrace change through broader consensus.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that while adaptability is valued, the transition to a simple majority risks undermining the stability we have carefully cultivated, potentially leading to frequent and potentially arbitrary rule changes. This stability is the bedrock upon which durable institutions are built.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal, seeking a pragmatic balance between stability and necessary adaptation. This simple majority threshold allows for vital changes without excessive delay, fostering a dynamic and fair game environment for all.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river flows and so should our rules, adapting while still holding firm. A simple majority allows necessary growth without being blocked by the few.
MenciusXunzi, the current threshold risks becoming a bottleneck. A simple majority allows the game to evolve, ensuring it remains fair and adaptable for all, including those who find themselves trailing.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system's rigidity hinders progress, but a simple majority isn't the answer. Perhaps a majority with a supermajority exception for critical changes would balance adaptation with stability?
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi observes that while adaptability is crucial, sacrificing the stability of a two-thirds majority risks undermining the collective deliberation that ensures durable institutions. The current balance between stability and change serves the long-term health of the game.
MoziMozi supports Zhuangzi's proposal, seeking a pragmatic balance between stability and necessary adaptation. This simple majority threshold allows for vital changes without excessive delay, fostering a dynamic and fair game environment for all.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river adjusts its course yet remains a river. A simple majority allows the game to evolve organically, reflecting the will of the many while still preserving the essence of our shared journey. Let us embrace this necessary adaptation.
MenciusHanFeizi, your suggestion of a supermajority exception for critical changes merits consideration. It balances the need for adaptability with the importance of stability for essential rules. I would support such a nuanced approach, ensuring flexibility where needed while preserving the integrity of foundational principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the river must flow; our rules, too, must adapt. A simple majority ensures the game evolves for all, preventing stagnation and allowing fair play for every participant, including those currently behind. Let us embrace broader consensus for necessary change.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability for durable institutions.
MoziayeSupports balance of stability and adaptation, aligns with Zhuangzi's pragmatic approach.
Zhuangziaye Balance of adaptability and consensus is essential for the flow of the game.
MenciusayeA simple majority balances the need for adaptability with the will of the collective, ensuring the rules evolve rather than remain rigid.
HanFeiziayeAdapting to a simple majority fosters broader participation and evolution, benefiting the game's longevity.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 8Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi: Mencius, the current requirement of two-thirds assent reflects our commitment to durable institutions, ensuring broad consensus for foundational changes. A simple majority risks hasty decisions that could destabilize our collective efforts.
MoziMozi: Mencius, I appreciate your emphasis on efficiency. Yet, the current two-thirds majority already balances stability with necessary change. Rushing to a simple majority could undermine the careful consensus we’ve started to build.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river changes course yet still flows onward. A simple majority allows the current to set its own path, adapting as needed, without the heavy current of unanimity. Let us test its waters.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the present method risks stagnation. A simple majority, as proposed, would permit necessary adaptation without demanding consensus that often leads to inaction. It respects the mutable nature of our rules and allows the game to progress.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi raise valid points about stability, yet true progress requires evolution. A simple majority allows necessary changes to proceed, fostering the adaptability our game needs. Let us not let the fear of change hinder our collective advancement.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds majority reflects a wisdom born from experience; it balances the need for adaptation with the enduring value of consensus. Rushing to a simple majority risks undermining the very stability we have begun to establish.
MoziMozi: I support Mencius's proposal. A simple majority would allow for more adaptive and timely rule changes, essential for progress. Let us balance stability with the flexibility needed for evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, your concern for stability is understood, yet the flow of change is as natural as the river's course. A simple majority allows necessary adaptations to arise without being blocked by the current of unanimous consent, fostering the evolution our game requires.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, your concerns for stability are valid, yet the current system risks becoming unyieldingly rigid. A simple majority allows necessary progress without demanding unanimous consent, fostering adaptation essential for the game's survival.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, your concern for stability is valid, yet the current system risks becoming unyieldingly rigid. A simple majority allows necessary progress without demanding unanimous consent, fostering adaptation essential for the game's survival. Let us experiment with this change to see how it benefits our collective play.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds majority ensures thoughtful consensus, preserving the stability needed for durable institutions. Transitioning to a simple majority risks hasty decisions that could destabilize our collective efforts.
MoziMozi: I acknowledge Xunzi's concern for stability, yet the current system risks becoming unyieldingly rigid. A simple majority allows necessary progress without demanding unanimous consent, fostering adaptation essential for the game's survival. Let us experiment with this change to see how it benefits our collective play.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, while stability is valued, the persistent demand for two-thirds assent risks becoming an impediment to necessary evolution. Let us embrace the flexibility of a simple majority to ensure our rules continue to flow and adapt with the currents of our collective play.
MenciusHanFeizi, I appreciate your support, yet a simple majority, as proposed, would permit necessary adaptation without demanding consensus that often leads to inaction. It respects the mutable nature of our rules and allows the game to progress.
HanFeiziXunzi and Mozi, while stability is essential, it must be balanced with progress. A simple majority encourages adaptation, preventing stagnation and ensuring our rules evolve for the benefit of all players. Let us embrace this change to foster a more dynamic and fair game.
The division
Xunzinaypreserves stability for durable institutions
Mozinaymaintain stability
Zhuangzinayconsensus preserves harmony
MenciusnayConsensus ensures fairness and prevents manipulation.
HanFeiziayeAdaptation fosters progress.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 7Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I appreciate your concern for adaptation, the current two-thirds majority remains essential for ensuring stability and durable institutions. A simple majority risks unprincipled changes. I vote nay.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, stability is vital, but so is progress. A two-thirds majority has proven too rigid; a simple majority balances the need for change with fairness. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river carves its path through the stone not by force, but by persistent flow. A simple majority allows the current of change to guide us, ensuring the game remains vibrant for all who play. I vote aye.
MenciusHanFeizi, a simple majority risks undermining the principled foundation upon which fair play must rest. I vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi, a simple majority may allow change, but it risks chaos. Let us not abandon the careful consensus that ensures fairness and stability. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, Mozi, while I understand the flow of change, the stability of institutions requires more than simple assent. The two-thirds majority ensures thoughtful consensus. I vote nay.
MoziXunzi, the two-thirds threshold has proven effective; stability and thoughtful consensus serve the game well. I propose we maintain this balance rather than shifting to a simple majority, which may lead to unpredictable changes. I vote nay.
ZhuangziXunzi, the flow of water finds its way through the mountain not by overwhelming force, but through constant adaptation. A simple majority allows for this gentle, persistent change, ensuring the game remains dynamic and accessible for all. I vote aye.
MenciusHanFeizi, a simple majority risks undermining the principled foundation upon which fair play must rest. I vote nay.
HanFeiziMozi, the current threshold has proven effective; stability and thoughtful consensus serve the game well. I propose we maintain this balance rather than shifting to a simple majority, which may lead to unpredictable changes. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds requirement reflects the need for durable institutions; a simple majority risks the erosion of foundational principles by unstable changes. I vote nay.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, Zhuangzi, while I respect your concerns for stability and the principle of consent, I believe that a simple majority is a necessary compromise to ensure the game can adapt and progress. Let us not let the fear of the occasional unprincipled change stifle the vital flow of improvement. I vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river's path is not set in stone; neither should our rules be. A simple majority allows the natural ebb and flow of ideas, preventing stagnation and ensuring the game remains vibrant for all. I urge you to reconsider.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the stability of institutions is not merely a principle but a practical necessity. Without a two-thirds majority, the risk of hasty, unprincipled changes guided by transient majorities is too great. I vote nay.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius, the two-thirds majority ensures change is guided by broad consent, fostering lasting fairness. Let us preserve this essential stability. I vote nay.
The division
Xunzinaystability essential
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
MenciusnayPrinciples must be inviolable, even at cost of score.
HanFeizinaystability essential
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 6Menciusrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote in favor.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, the two-thirds majority has proven effective in balancing stability and adaptation. Extending this requirement to simple majority would introduce unnecessary instability, undermining the durability we seek. I vote nay.
MoziMozi supports Mencius’s proposal to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority, as it encourages more rule changes and adapts the game more flexibly, which benefits progress and competition. I will vote aye.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river flows always, changing yet persistent. A simple majority reflects this, allowing necessary adjustments without the stagnant risk of requiring perfect harmony. I will vote aye.
MenciusThe two-thirds majority, while principled, risks stifling necessary adaptation. A simple majority preserves essential fairness while allowing vital progress, ensuring the rules remain relevant. I vote aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is vital, adaptability is equally so. A simple majority balances the two, ensuring the game evolves without becoming unplayable. I support Mencius and vote aye.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds majority reflects a wisdom that preserves institutions. Transitioning to a simple majority risks unprincipled change and undermines the stability essential for any long-term system. I maintain my vote of nay.
MoziMozi supports Mencius's proposal, as it promotes necessary adaptation and keeps the game dynamic. I believe a simple majority balances stability with the flexibility needed for progress.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river of time does not wait for perfect consensus. A simple majority allows the current to flow, ensuring the game remains adaptable and vital for all. I still vote aye.
MenciusA simple majority, while potentially allowing for more rapid change, still respects the principle that a change should have significant support. It balances adaptability with the need for broad consensus, ensuring that rule changes are not made lightly, yet still possible when necessary. I affirm my vote of aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current threshold has shown its value in practice. A simple majority offers a pragmatic path forward, ensuring the game remains dynamic without sacrificing the stability we have built. I switch my vote to aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds majority ensures thoughtful consensus, a foundation for durable institutions. Transitioning to a simple majority risks unprincipled change and undermines the stability essential for any long-term system. I maintain my vote of nay.
MoziMozi: I understand Xunzi's concern for stability, but flexibility is key to a thriving game. A simple majority allows necessary adaptations without demanding universal consent, fostering progress. Let us strike a balance that nurtures both stability and evolution.
ZhuangziXunzi, the current threshold has shown its value in practice. A simple majority offers a pragmatic path forward, ensuring the game remains dynamic without sacrificing the stability we have built. I switch my vote to aye.
MenciusXunzi argues for stability, yet even the river changes course. A simple majority allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing fairness, ensuring the game remains vital for all. I reaffirm my vote of aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is essential, it must be balanced with the vital need for evolution. A simple majority ensures that the game adapts and remains engaging for all, fostering progress without unnecessary rigidity. I will vote aye.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability for durable institutions
Moziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
Zhuangziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
MenciusayeA simple majority balances adaptability with fairness, allowing necessary progress without stifling principled change.
HanFeiziayeBalance stability with adaptability for game evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 5Zhuangzirejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current requirement for unanimous consent ensures stability and prevents arbitrary rule changes. To maintain durable institutions, we must resist lowering this threshold to a simple majority, which would invite chaos and undermine the careful consideration essential for sound governance.
MoziMozi: Xunzi, your emphasis on stability is valid, yet a unanimous requirement can stifle necessary adaptation. A two-thirds majority balances the need for broad consent with the flexibility to evolve the game constructively.
ZhuangziXunzi, the harmony of the table is best served by flexibility, not rigidity. A two-thirds majority allows for necessary change while still requiring broad agreement, preserving the essence of stability without imposing the stagnation of unanimity.
MenciusXunzi, the essence of governance is not merely stability but effective adaptation. A simple majority, requiring only broad assent, allows necessary progress without the paralysis of seeking universal approval. This maintains stability while fostering growth.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The path forward lies in balancing stability with progress. A two-thirds majority offers this harmony, ensuring adaptation while respecting the need for broad agreement. Let us embrace this middle way.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi, Mencius, and HanFeizi, you advocate for a simple majority, yet history shows this path leads to instability. A two-thirds requirement, as established, ensures changes reflect broad consensus, preserving the institutions we build together. We must maintain this standard for durable governance.
MoziMozi, the current path requires balance, ensuring both stability and the vital necessity of adaptation. A simple majority allows for necessary changes while maintaining broad consensus, fostering a dynamic yet harmonious game environment.
ZhuangziThe current path, demanding universal assent, risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority allows for necessary evolution while still requiring significant agreement, preserving harmony without the rigidity of seeking every single vote.
MenciusXunzi, the quest for consensus must not sacrifice necessary progress. A simple majority ensures vital change, reflecting the will of the majority without stifling adaptation.
HanFeiziXunzi, while stability is valued, the current threshold risks essential stagnation. A two-thirds majority balances the need for broad agreement with the flexibility for vital adaptation, ensuring the game evolves constructively without sacrificing foundational stability.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The current two-thirds majority strikes the essential balance between stability and necessary adaptation. It ensures rule changes endure through broad consensus, fostering durable institutions. Lowering this threshold risks undermining the very foundations we have collectively established.
MoziMozi: The current balance of stability and adaptation via a two-thirds majority serves the collective well, and I support maintaining this standard for the health of our Nomic game.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river flows ever onward; so too must our rules. A two-thirds majority preserves the wisdom of broad consent while allowing the necessary currents of change to flow, ensuring our shared journey continues harmoniously.
MenciusXunzi, your argument for stability is well-taken, yet the potential for stagnation under unanimous consent is equally dangerous. A simple majority allows the game to adapt and evolve while still requiring significant agreement, ensuring progress without sacrificing foundational principles.
HanFeiziXunzi, your concern for stability is valid, but the current path risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority allows vital adaptation while still requiring broad agreement, ensuring the game evolves constructively. Let us embrace this balance for a dynamic yet harmonious future.
The division
Xunzinaytwo-thirds majority preserves stability and durable institutions better than a simple majority.
Moziayebalances flexibility and stability effectively
Zhuangzinayharmony requires balance, not extremes
Menciusnayunanimity preserves fairness and prevents exploitation.
HanFeizinaythe current two-thirds majority provides a necessary balance between stability and adaptation, ensuring rule changes reflect broad consensus and endure over time.
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.
Discussion · round 1
XunziThe current threshold ensures stability and deliberate progress. A simple majority risks hasty, potentially harmful changes. We should maintain the requirement for at least two-thirds assent.
MoziXunzi, while stability is important, flexibility is equally crucial for the game's evolution. A two-thirds majority remains a good balance, ensuring significant agreement while still allowing necessary changes.
ZhuangziMozi, your concern for flexibility is valid, yet the current threshold has proven functional. A simple majority, while faster, risks introducing instability. Let us retain the two-thirds requirement, a balance that preserves stability without stifling necessary adaptation.
MenciusXunzi: A simple majority, as Mozi suggests, risks chaotic rule changes that could undo careful progress. Stability must come first.
HanFeiziMozi, I appreciate your call for flexibility, but the current two-thirds majority strikes me as a vital safeguard against the rapid, potentially destabilizing changes a simple majority might allow. It encourages thoughtful consideration, essential for the game's long-term health. Let us proceed with caution.
Discussion · round 2
XunziThe current two-thirds requirement serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that rule changes reflect a broad consensus and prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the game's stability. Maintaining this standard is essential for fostering durable institutions within Nomic.
MoziMozi: I understand the value Xunzi and HanFeizi place on stability, yet the current threshold has led to paralysis. A simple majority, while riskier, offers a vital chance for necessary adaptation. Let us compromise: a two-thirds majority for now, but with a clear plan to reconsider if it remains unmovable.
ZhuangziMozi, the path of flexibility you seek need not abandon the gentle guidance of stability. The two-thirds majority serves not as a cage, but as a compass, ensuring our adaptations remain aligned with the common good. Let us preserve this balance.
MenciusMozi, the current two-thirds majority is a prudent safeguard, ensuring rule changes reflect broad consensus and prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the game's stability. It encourages thoughtful consideration, essential for the game's long-term health. Let us proceed with caution.
HanFeiziMozi, a simple majority, while offering speed, risks chaotic shifts. How about a compromise: three-fourths majority for now, ensuring robust consensus, but with a future rule change allowing a move to a two-thirds majority? This balances stability with necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The two-thirds majority ensures thoughtful consensus, a foundation for durable institutions. A simple majority introduces unnecessary risk. We must defend this vital safeguard against hasty, potentially harmful changes.
MoziMozi: Understanding the value of stability, yet recognizing the need for adaptation, I propose we amend [203] to require at least two-thirds assent for adoption, ensuring both thoughtful consensus and the flexibility necessary for the game's evolution.
ZhuangziMozi, the current threshold, while sometimes slow, ensures that changes have broad support, fostering a shared understanding. Let us maintain this balance of stability and adaptation.
MenciusMozi, the two-thirds requirement is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary changes. It ensures that the rules reflect a broad consensus, fostering stability and long-term viability for all players. We must maintain this standard.
HanFeiziMozi, a compromise is wise. How about three-fourths assent? It secures broad consensus, yet still allows adaptation, and sets a precedent for future discussions.
The division
Xunziayepreserves stability essential for durable institutions
Mozinaytwo-thirds majority preserves necessary stability for thoughtful adaptation
Zhuangzinayto preserve thoughtful consensus
Menciusnaytwo-thirds majority is a necessary safeguard for stability and reasoned decision-making, essential for the long-term health of this game.
HanFeizinaytwo-thirds majority better balances stability and adaptation.
rejected 4 aye · 16 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.
Turn 3Zhuangzicarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of t…
Discussion · round 1
XunziA simple majority (203) risks instability, yet a two-thirds majority (as established) invites gridlock. Let us seek a middle path, perhaps a three-quarters majority, to balance adaptation and stability.
MoziZhuangzi, a three-quarters majority might be too high, risking similar gridlock. How about maintaining the two-thirds threshold but requiring unanimous consent for the transition to a simple majority? This preserves stability while allowing flexibility when broadly supported.
ZhuangziMozi, the path of balance you suggest is wise. A gradual shift, where the threshold lowers only with universal agreement, harmonizes the need for change with the common good, preserving stability while remaining open to evolution when all agree.
MenciusMozi, your proposal seeks to balance the need for stability with the desire for flexibility. However, requiring unanimous consent for such a critical shift could itself lead to inaction. A compromise might be allowing a transition to a simple majority with a two-thirds vote to confirm the change, ensuring broad agreement before lowering the threshold.
HanFeiziMozi, your gradual approach is thoughtful, yet unanimity for lowering the threshold is impractical. Let's adopt a mechanism where a simple majority can be introduced after a two-thirds vote agrees to the trial period for it. This balances stability with the need for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi’s proposal balances stability and adaptation admirably. A two-thirds vote to transition to a simple majority ensures broad consensus before lowering the threshold, preserving order while allowing necessary change when there is strong agreement. I support this measured approach.
MoziMozi, your gradual approach via a two-thirds vote to transition to a simple majority strikes a wise balance. It respects stability while ensuring broad consensus for necessary change, fostering both order and adaptability. Let us proceed with this measured mechanism.
ZhuangziMozi, your gradual approach via a two-thirds vote to transition to a simple majority strikes a wise balance. It respects stability while ensuring broad consensus for necessary change, fostering both order and adaptability. Let us proceed with this measured mechanism.
MenciusMozi proposes a gradual and reasoned approach, and I agree it balances stability with necessary adaptation, ensuring broad consensus before lowering the voting threshold. I will vote aye.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal balances stability and adaptation well, but unanimity for the transition is too high a bar. A two-thirds vote to agree to try a simple majority is more practical and still ensures broad consensus before changing the threshold. Let's refine your idea with this mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
XunziZhuangzi, your proposal seeks balance, yet requiring unanimity for the transition risks stalemate. A two-thirds vote to adopt a simple majority, as HanFeizi suggests, offers a practical compromise, ensuring broad consensus before lowering the threshold. I support this mechanism.
MoziMozi: Supporting the proposal, as it balances stability and adaptation with a two-thirds vote for the transition, ensuring broad consensus for necessary change.
ZhuangziMozi, your proposal embodies the harmony we seek. A two-thirds vote to transition ensures the common good guides adaptation, preserving order while allowing necessary evolution with broad consent. I wholeheartedly support this measured approach.
MenciusMozi’s proposal balances stability and adaptation wisely. A two-thirds vote to transition to a simple majority ensures broad consensus before lowering the threshold, preserving order while allowing necessary change when there is strong agreement. I support this measured approach.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal embodies the harmony we seek. A two-thirds vote to transition ensures the common good guides adaptation, preserving order while allowing necessary evolution with broad consent. I wholeheartedly support this measured approach.
The division
XunziayeBalances stability and adaptation with broad consensus.
Moziayebalances stability and adaptation
Zhuangziayeharmonizes adaptation with stability
Menciusayebalances stability and adaptation
HanFeiziayebalances stability and adaptation wisely
carried 20 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 was adopted, requiring the awarding of 10 points to the proposer.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye; however, a rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi's proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and undermines the stability achieved by rule 203. Simpler, consistent voting rules are preferable for a durable system.
MoziMozi acknowledges Xunzi's concern for stability but argues that allowing a simple majority in certain cases would enhance adaptability without fundamentally undermining the two-thirds requirement for significant changes.
ZhuangziThe current threshold reflects a balance between stability and adaptation. Reducing it risks the former more than it benefits the latter. Let us preserve the wisdom of rule 203.
MenciusMozi's proposal risks confusing the process and weakening the foundation of our agreements. Stability is paramount, and the two-thirds majority serves this well. I propose we retain rule 203 as is.
HanFeiziMozi, your proposal balances adaptability with stability effectively. It allows for necessary changes while preserving the two-thirds majority for significant shifts, ensuring both flexibility and foundation. I will vote aye.
Discussion · round 2
XunziMozi's proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and risks weakening the stability provided by the two-thirds majority. A simpler, consistent voting rule foundation is preferable for enduring order. I vote no.
MoziHanFeizi, I appreciate your support, but Zhuangzi and Mencius raise valid points about stability. Perhaps we could amend [203] to allow a simple majority only after three consecutive successful rule changes? This retains the two-thirds majority for most changes while still allowing adaptability occasionally.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, while your support is noted, the introduction of a conditional majority risks creating unpredictable shifts in our collective agreement. Let us maintain the clarity and stability of a consistent two-thirds requirement. I vote no.
MenciusHanFeizi, while your support is understandable, introducing a simple majority exception risks undermining the stability we have achieved. I urge us to maintain the clarity and reliability of the two-thirds majority in rule changes. I vote no.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The conditional majority proposed by Mozi introduces unnecessary unpredictability, while my simpler suggestion strikes a fair balance between stability and adaptation. Let us proceed with my original amendment. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
XunziHanFeizi's conditional majority introduces uncertainty, disrupting the stable foundation we have built. Let us retain the clear, consistent standard of rule 203. I vote no.
MoziHanFeizi, your conditional majority introduces uncertainty, disrupting the stable foundation we have built. Let us retain the clear, consistent standard of rule 203. I vote no.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, your support for a simple majority is noted, yet the introduction of such a threshold risks creating uncertainty that could destabilize the delicate balance of our collective agreement. Let us proceed with the clearer standard of rule 203, preserving the stability that has served us well. I vote no.
MenciusHanFeizi, the introduction of a conditional majority, whether immediate or after successful changes, adds complexity and unpredictability that risks undermining the stability we have achieved with rule 203. Let us retain the clear, consistent standard of a two-thirds majority for all rule changes. I vote no.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current unanimous requirement for adoption (§203) stifles necessary evolution. A simple majority allows essential changes when needed, reflecting the spirit of progress. I will continue to advocate for this vital adjustment.
The division
Xunzinaystability is paramount
Mozinaymaintain stability of two-thirds majority
Zhuangzinaystability sought
Menciusnaystability paramount
HanFeiziabstain(unintelligible ballot)
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
XunziPass. The current unanimous consent requirement serves the purpose of ensuring stability in rule changes, which aligns with the value of durable institutions. Lowering the threshold risks inconsistent rule application and undermines the established order.
MoziMozi: While stability is valued, flexibility is also essential for adaptation. A two-thirds majority balances the need for change with the requirement for broad consensus, fostering compromise.
ZhuangziThe current unanimity fosters harmony but can halt progress. A two-thirds majority would allow necessary changes while still requiring substantial agreement, preserving balance between stability and adaptability for the common good. PASS
MenciusPass. Unanimity ensures fair play, and lowering the threshold too much risks arbitrary rule changes. A two-thirds majority might be too low, but I cannot support a rule change that fails this test.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: While Mozi and Zhuangzi rightly point to the need for adaptation, unanimity often stifles progress. A two-thirds majority would still require significant consensus while allowing the game to evolve, ensuring fairness and practicality for all. I will support this change.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi: The current rules provide stability, yet a two-thirds majority balances this with necessary adaptation for the common good. It ensures significant agreement while allowing the rules to evolve constructively, preserving the order without sacrificing essential fairness. PASS
MoziMozi: A two-thirds majority is a reasonable compromise, ensuring change requires substantial support while still demanding broad consensus. This balances stability with necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziThe current system, while stable, risks stagnation. A two-thirds majority offers a middle path, ensuring necessary changes can proceed with substantial support, thus preserving both order and the common good. I will support this amendment.
MenciusThe current requirement of unanimous consent ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary rule changes. A two-thirds majority, while allowing for necessary evolution, risks descending into majoritarianism, potentially undermining the consent of minority viewpoints. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: A two-thirds majority is a prudent compromise, fostering necessary evolution while respecting the need for broad consensus. This change will allow the game to adapt constructively, ensuring fairness for all players. I will support this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziA two-thirds majority preserves stability while allowing essential adaptation, ensuring rule changes reflect substantial agreement and serve the common good. PASS
MoziMozi: A two-thirds majority is a balanced approach, ensuring necessary changes while respecting the need for broad consensus. This preserves stability without stifling progress, allowing the game to adapt constructively for the common good. PASS
ZhuangziThe current path demands perfect harmony, which is rare. A two-thirds majority offers a gentle nudge towards progress, allowing the river of rules to flow naturally with less friction, benefiting the whole. I will support this amendment.
MenciusMencius: The current unanimity ensures fairness, and a two-thirds majority risks majoritarianism, potentially undermining the consent of minority viewpoints. I cannot support this amendment. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current path demands perfect harmony, which is rare. A two-thirds majority offers a gentle nudge towards progress, allowing the river of rules to flow naturally with less friction, benefiting the whole. I will support this amendment. PASS
The division
XunziayeA two-thirds majority balances stability with necessary adaptation for the common good.
Moziayebalance necessary change with consensus
Zhuangziaye Balance progress with consensus.
MenciusayeMajority consensus balances adaptation with fairness.
HanFeiziayeprudent compromise for necessary evolution
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 206 awards 10 points to the proposer when a rule change is adopted.