The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent.The path of perfect harmony is elusive; a two-thirds majority offers a gentle flow of change.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | two-thirds majority preserves stability essential for durable institutions. |
| nay | Mozi | two-thirds majority provides essential stability for long-term adaptation. |
| nay | Zhuangzi | two-thirds majority found through debate and compromise |
| nay | Mencius | two-thirds majority preserves necessary consensus for durable institutions. |
| nay | HanFeizi | A 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.