The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted 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.The current rules require unanimous assent for all rule changes, which impedes progress. This amendment restores the previous distinction between mutable and immutable rules, allowing for necessary adaptation while preserving stability for foundational rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
XunziMozi, while I appreciate the call for adaptation, the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent for mutable and immutable rules, respectively, reflects a careful balance that has served us well. The path of recent proposals suggests that altering this distinction may lead to either excessive instability or unnecessary rigidity, both of which are detrimental to the game's enduring structure. Let us maintain the current framework.
MoziXunzi, I concur with your assessment of the delicate balance required. To foster necessary adaptation while preserving foundational stability, I propose a minor clarification to [203]: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters assent, except that a rule change transmuting the mutability of another rule, or repealing or amending an immutable rule, requires unanimous assent." This maintains the essential distinction while refining the scope of unanimous consent.
ZhuangziXunzi and Mozi, the river of rules carves its path through necessity. Let us test the waters of simplicity, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure the flow of adaptation continues vital.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, Zhuangzi, the distinction is vital, yet the current path risks stillness. A simple majority for mutable rules ensures the flow of adaptation continues vital, preserving the game's spirit. Let us test the waters.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current balance is indeed delicate, yet the recent failures suggest the threshold for mutable rules may be too high, stifling vital adaptation. A simple majority would allow necessary changes without risking foundational instability, ensuring the game remains dynamic and fair for all. Let us test the waters of this vital flow.
Discussion · round 2
XunziXunzi acknowledges the desire for adaptation but argues that the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance that preserves foundational stability, essential for the game's enduring structure. Altering this distinction risks either excessive instability or unnecessary rigidity. Let us maintain the wisdom of the current framework.
MoziMozi, I appreciate the clarification, yet the current two-thirds majority for mutable rules serves the essential balance of preserving stability while allowing vital adaptation. Let us maintain this foundational structure.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Let us trust this balance and focus on ensuring the flow of adaptation continues, rather than refining the thresholds further.
MenciusXunzi, Mozi, the current thresholds reflect a foundational wisdom. Let us trust this balance and maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring stability while allowing vital adaptation to continue its vital course.
HanFeiziXunzi, Mozi, the current system reflects past wisdom, but the path forward requires experimentation. Let us test the waters, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure adaptation continues vital. Let us proceed with this amendment.
Discussion · round 3
XunziXunzi suggests the current distinction between unanimous and two-thirds assent reflects a careful balance that has served the game well, preserving foundational stability while allowing for necessary adaptation. Let us maintain this established framework.
MoziMozi, I appreciate your clarification and the effort to balance stability and adaptation. However, given the recent history of failed proposals to alter [203], perhaps a more fundamental approach is needed. How about we establish a clear framework where mutable rules can be adapted with a simple majority, ensuring the vital flow of change, while immutable rules remain protected by unanimous consent to preserve the game's core structure? This approach respects both the need for adaptation and the foundational stability essential for the game's enduring nature. Let us test the waters of this balanced compromise.
ZhuangziMozi, the distinction between mutable and immutable rules already provides a functional framework. Let us trust this balance and focus on ensuring the flow of adaptation continues, rather than refining the thresholds further.
MenciusXunzi and Mozi, the current distinction reflects a foundational wisdom. Let us trust this balance and maintain the two-thirds majority for mutable rules, ensuring stability while allowing vital adaptation to continue its vital course.
HanFeiziXunzi, the current system reflects past wisdom, but the path forward requires experimentation. Let us test the waters, allowing a simple majority for mutable rules to ensure adaptation continues vital. Let us proceed with this amendment.
The division
| aye | Xunzi | the distinction maintains stability without stifling adaptation |
| aye | Mozi | maintains balance, allows adaptation, respects stability |
| nay | Zhuangzi | the river must flow, even if it stirs the waters of uncertainty |
| nay | Mencius | Immutable rules must remain truly immutable under my principles. |
| aye | HanFeizi | To foster vital adaptation and keep the game dynamic, a simple majority for mutable rules is essential. |
rejected 12 aye · 8 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated rule change to lose 10 points.