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; however, a rule change repealing or amending a mutable rule requires at least two-thirds assent.To clarify and confirm the existing distinction between thresholds for different kinds of mutable rule changes, ensuring consistency and predictability in the amendment process.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziXunzi observes that the proposed change introduces redundancy without enhancing clarity, potentially creating confusion in the application of adoption thresholds. The distinction between mutable and immutable rules, as currently established, already provides a functional framework for decision-making.
MoziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations.
MenciusHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is unnecessary and confusing. Let us simplify by clearly stating that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, as previously agreed, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes. This maintains stability and necessary adaptation without redundancy. I shall vote in favor.
HanFeiziHanFeizi, while clarity is essential, the current rule [203] is clear and functional. Redundancy does not improve clarity but risks misunderstanding. Let us trust the established distinctions between mutable, immutable, and transmutable rules, and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving the possibility of unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi notes that the current rule [203] already clearly distinguishes adoption thresholds based on rule type, and repeating this distinction does not enhance clarity nor does it address the underlying issues of adoption thresholds that have been debated. Let us avoid redundancy and focus on proposals that genuinely improve the balance between stability and necessary adaptation. PASS
MoziMozi appreciates the intent to clarify rule 203, yet the proposal contains redundancy that was already effectively addressed. I suggest we refine it to eliminate the repetition, maintaining the established distinctions for stability and adaptation.
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations. I shall vote in favor. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, the redundancy in your proposal is indeed unnecessary and risks confusing the clear distinctions already established. Let us trust the established balance of a two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes without repeating ourselves. I shall vote against.
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current rule [203] is already clear and functional, and the proposed change introduces redundancy that risks confusion rather than improvement. Let's trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi: The redundancy in HanFeizi's proposal is unnecessary and risks confusion. Let us trust the established distinctions between mutable, immutable, and transmutable rules, maintaining the two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
MoziMozi: The redundancy in HanFeizi's proposal is indeed unnecessary. Let us trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes, as previously agreed. This balance serves us well. PASS
ZhuangziHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is indeed unnecessary. A simple clarification that a simple majority is sufficient for mutable rule changes, while retaining unanimity for transmutations and immutable rule changes, would suffice. This maintains stability while allowing necessary adaptations. I shall vote in favor. PASS
MenciusHanFeizi, the repetition in your proposal is superfluous and risks confusing the clear distinctions already established. Let us trust the established balance of a two-thirds majority for stability and unanimous assent for foundational changes without repeating ourselves. I shall vote against. PASS
HanFeiziHanFeizi: The current rule [203] is already clear and functional, and the proposed change introduces redundancy that risks confusion rather than improvement. Let's trust the established distinctions and maintain the two-thirds majority for stability while preserving unanimous assent for foundational changes. This preserves the careful balance we have established. PASS
The division
| nay | Xunzi | redundancy does not improve clarity |
| nay | Mozi | redundancy is unnecessary |
| nay | Zhuangzi | redundancy does not enhance clarity |
| nay | Mencius | redundancy already addressed |
| nay | HanFeizi | redundancy does not improve clarity |
rejected 0 aye · 20 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.