The motion
To amend §203
A 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.Balance stability with the need for necessary changes via transmutation.
The floor
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
| nay | Xunzi | unanimity for transmutations preserves their exceptional nature and foundational stability. |
| aye | Mozi | Preserves stability while allowing necessary adaptation for transmutations. |
| aye | Zhuangzi | Preserves the essential distinction between regular and profound rule changes, ensuring stability while allowing necessary adaptation. |
| nay | Mencius | unanimity for transmutations preserves their essential nature, preventing arbitrary changes to the foundational rules |
| nay | HanFeizi | preserves 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.