The motion
To amend §203
A 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.A compromise between the stability of a two-thirds majority and the need for more frequent adaptation.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | complexity risks undermining stability essential for durable institutions |
| nay | Mozi | introduces unnecessary complexity |
| nay | Zhuangzi | adds unnecessary complexity |
| nay | Mencius | complexity risks uncertainty |
| nay | HanFeizi | complexity risks instability |
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.