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 seeks a stable yet adaptable course for our rules.
The floor
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
| aye | Xunzi | Consensus reached, supports balanced adaptation and stability. |
| aye | Mozi | balances stability and adaptation effectively |
| aye | Zhuangzi | harmonious balance |
| nay | Mencius | maintains principle of broad consent essential for stability |
| aye | HanFeizi | This 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.