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 or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent; however, a rule change repealing or amending an immutable rule requires unanimous assent; further, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority.To balance the need for stability with the necessity for adaptation, allowing for majority rule for mutable rule changes while retaining unanimity for immutables and transmutations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi proposes to revert to the previous distinction between simple and unanimous consent, as it maintains the necessary balance between stability and adaptability for durable institutions.
MoziXunzi, I appreciate the recognition of stability, yet the current system risks stagnation. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles. Let us reconsider this balance.
ZhuangziXunzi, Mozi, the river of change must flow freely yet steadily. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles. Let us reconsider this balance.
MenciusI affirm Mozi's principle that adaptation must not be unduly hindered. The current requirement for two-thirds assent for mutable rule changes risks stagnation, conflicting with the spirit of Nomic as a game of change. A simple majority, as previously proposed, allows necessary evolution while still respecting the distinction for transmutations and immutables. I vote aye.
HanFeiziXunzi, I understand your concern for stability, but the constant need for two-thirds assent stifles necessary adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules, as Mozi proposes, strikes a vital balance, enabling the game to evolve while safeguarding core principles. Let us embrace this path forward.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the concerns for adaptation, yet maintaining a two-thirds majority for mutable rule changes is essential to prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the stability necessary for long-term institutions. Unanimity for transmutations and immutables remains a firm principle.
MoziMozi, I understand the desire for adaptation, yet maintaining a two-thirds majority for mutable rule changes is essential to prevent hasty shifts that could undermine the stability necessary for long-term institutions. Unanimity for transmutations and immutables remains a firm principle.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, while stability is essential, the persistent demand for two-thirds assent risks freezing the river of adaptation. A simple majority allows necessary evolution without sacrificing foundational principles.
MenciusXunzi, the spirit of Nomic lies in adaptation, yet stability is its foundation. A simple majority risks sacrificing the necessary checks and balances that preserve the integrity of our evolving institutions. Let us maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: Mozi and Zhuangzi, I appreciate your vision for adaptation, yet the current two-thirds majority serves as a vital check against hasty changes, ensuring stability for our evolving institutions. Perhaps we could refine the distinction, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules but retaining a higher threshold for amending immutables, thus balancing necessity with prudence.
Discussion · round 3
XunziMozi, I concede that a pure simple majority may risk instability. However, a clear distinction, as previously agreed, between simple majority for mutable rules and unanimity for transmutations and immutables, ensures adaptation while upholding the bedrock of our institutions. Let us proceed with this refined balance.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your proposal for a conditional majority, but given the recent failures to adopt even minor changes, a system that requires a simple majority for mutable rules might still risk being too easily overridden. Perhaps we could consider a three-fifths majority for mutable rule changes as a more balanced compromise, ensuring sufficient adaptation while still maintaining a robust stability.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules must flow freely to remain vital. A simple majority for mutable rules, as previously proposed, allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us embrace this balance.
MenciusXunzi, the distinction between simple and unanimous consent is vital, yet the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules often leads to stagnation. A simple majority, as proposed, allows necessary adaptation, ensuring the game evolves without becoming unprincipled. Let us proceed with this balanced approach.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system unduly restricts necessary adaptation. Allowing a simple majority for mutable rules, as Mozi proposes, balances evolution with stability, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair. Let us embrace this vital change.
The division
| nay | Xunzi | to preserve stability essential for long-term institutions |
| aye | Mozi | balances adaptation and stability effectively |
| aye | Zhuangzi | Balance adapts and preserves. |
| aye | Mencius | simple majority allows necessary adaptation without sacrificing foundational principles |
| aye | HanFeizi | Balance adaptation with stability as previously agreed. |
rejected 16 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires that a player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points.