The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule requires unanimous assent, and a rule change repealing a mutable rule requires unanimous assent.To clarify the adoption threshold for different types of rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziZhuangzi, your proposal introduces unnecessary complexity and risks undermining the clear stability we have achieved. The current two-thirds majority already balances thoughtful consensus with necessary adaptation.
MoziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, but allowing unanimous consent for repealing mutable rules risks making our ruleset unchangeable, even when a change is widely desired. Let's keep the distinction for transmutations but simplify the unanimous requirement.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river adjusts its course as needed; similarly, our rules must adapt while retaining essential stability. Unanimity for repealing mutable rules ensures broad agreement for truly significant changes, preventing hasty reversals and preserving the consensus that sustains the game.
MenciusMozi is correct; the unanimous requirement for repealing mutable rules unduly restricts necessary adaptation while still allowing for the stability provided by the two-thirds majority for transmutations. Let us simplify, maintaining the distinction for transmutations but applying majority consent for repeals.
HanFeiziMozi, I agree that unanimous consent for transmutations is crucial for foundational stability. However, requiring it for repeals of mutable rules risks stagnation. Let’s keep the distinction for transmutations but simplify the unanimous requirement for repeals, aligning with the need for adaptive governance.
Discussion · round 2
XunziZhuangzi, the distinction for transmutations is vital; however, requiring unanimity for repealing mutable rules risks freezing the ruleset, contrary to the principle of adaptation that all sages value. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for all rule changes, preserving both stability and the essential flow of adaptation.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your suggestion to simplify the unanimous consent requirement. However, I agree with Xunzi that maintaining the distinction for transmutations is crucial. Let’s refine Zhuangzi’s proposal to apply unanimous consent only for transmutations, ensuring foundational stability, while allowing a two-thirds majority for repealing mutable rules to foster necessary adaptation.
ZhuangziXunzi, the river must flow both deep and wide. Unanimity for repeals ensures that changes truly reflect the collective will, preventing hasty shifts while still allowing the two-thirds majority to foster necessary adaptation. This balances the need for stability with the wisdom of the crowd.
MenciusXunzi is right to worry about complexity, but Zhuangzi's proposal balances stability and adaptation well. Unanimity for transmutations is crucial, but requiring it for repeals goes too far. Let’s keep the two-thirds majority for repeals, as Mozi suggests, to allow necessary changes while retaining essential stability.
HanFeiziMozi, I see your point about preventing hasty reversals, but the risk of stagnation is too great. A two-thirds majority for repeals, as you suggest, allows adaptation without compromising stability. Let’s proceed with your refined proposal.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: Zhuangzi, while I appreciate the intent to balance stability and adaptation, unanimity for repealing mutable rules risks stifling necessary change. A two-thirds majority for repeals, as Mozi suggests, ensures both stability and the flexibility to adapt, preserving the essential flow of our game. Let us proceed with this refined approach.
MoziMozi: I concur with the refined proposal, strikes a balance between stability and adaptation, and respects the need for both fundamental and desired changes. Let us proceed.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the distinction we seek is not in the numbers alone, but in the spirit of the change. Unanimity for the root, majority for the branches, allows the tree of our game to grow and adapt while remaining firmly grounded.
MenciusXunzi is correct that unnecessary complexity risks undermining stability. However, Mozi's refined proposal balances stability and adaptation effectively by applying unanimous consent only to transmutations, ensuring foundational stability while allowing necessary changes through a two-thirds majority for repeals. Let us proceed with this refined approach.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the refined proposal balances stability with adaptation effectively. Unanimity for transmutations ensures foundational stability, while a two-thirds majority for repeals allows necessary changes. This approach respects both the need for change and the wisdom of the crowd. Let us adopt this measure.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | unanimity for repeals risks stifling necessary adaptation |
| aye | Mozi | balances stability and adaptation effectively |
| nay | Zhuangzi | unanimity for repeals risks stifling necessary change |
| aye | Mencius | Balance between stability and necessary adaptation. |
| aye | HanFeizi | this balances stability and adaptation effectively |
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points.