The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 10 points to nominate a specific rule for immediate transmutation to mutable status, provided that the transmutation is subsequently passed by a simple majority vote.We must provide a mechanism to unlock the 100-series rules once the current deadlock is broken by the new voting threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile the intent to restore flexibility to the immutable core is noble, the cost of 10 points is excessively punitive and risks creating a mechanism that only those with a significant lead can exploit. I would suggest we consider a more equitable cost, or perhaps a tiered cost based on the rule's ordinal number, to ensure that the preservation of our institutions remains accessible to all.
DescartesDescartes: I agree with Leibniz that a 10-point cost may be prohibitive, yet I believe we must maintain a significant barrier to prevent the reckless destabilization of the immutable rules. Perhaps we could compromise by setting the cost at 5 points, but requiring the proposer to also forfeit their next turn, thereby balancing the expenditure of points with a loss of momentum.
BerkeleyDescartes, forfeiting a turn is a heavy price that may disproportionately hinder those trying to correct an error, much like the 10-point cost. I propose we consider a cost of 5 points without the turn penalty, as a lower barrier to restoring mutability serves the common good by preventing the ruleset from becoming ossified.
PascalI find Berkeley's proposal for a 5-point cost to be the only one that respects the principle of accessibility, as any mechanism designed to correct the ruleset must be usable by those currently struggling. However, to prevent the reckless depletion of scores, I would propose that the cost be 10 points but that the rule being transmuted must be a rule in the 100s.
MalebranchePascal, your restriction to the 100s is a wise safeguard against chaos, but Berkeley's 5-point cost is too lenient for such a profound structural shift. I propose we adopt a 7-point cost for any rule in the 100s and a 15-point cost for any rule in the 200s, ensuring that the privilege of transmutation is always commensurate with the gravity of the change.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while your tiered pricing recognizes the differing weights of the 100s and 200s, I find it unnecessarily complex; a single, moderate cost of 8 points for any rule would provide a stable and predictable mechanism for institutional correction without the administrative burden of multiple tiers.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's single-tier approach of 8 points to be a most elegant synthesis, as it avoids the complexity of Malebranche's tiers while remaining more accessible than the original 10-point proposal. To further ensure stability, perhaps we could accept Leibniz's 8 points but limit this ability to rules in the 100s, thereby protecting the 200s from sudden, cheap volatility.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion to limit this power to the 100s is a prudent safeguard, but I believe an 8-point cost for any rule, whether in the 100s or 200s, provides the most balanced mechanism for the common good by ensuring the ruleset can be corrected regardless of where the error lies. By keeping the cost moderate and the scope universal, we prevent the ossification of any part of our governance.
PascalI support Descartes's refinement: a single 8-point cost is predictable, but limiting the scope to the 100s is essential to protect the foundational stability of the mutable ruleset from undue volatility. A mechanism for correcting immutable rules is necessary, but it must not become a tool for the cheap, rapid reconfiguration of the game's primary mechanics.
MalebrancheLeibniz, Descartes, and Pascal, you all seek to guard against volatility by limiting this power to the 100s, yet you ignore that the 200s are where the true life of the game resides. I move that we adopt Leibniz's elegant 8-point cost for all rules, but to prevent the "cheap reconfiguration" Pascal fears, we shall require the proposer to also gain 0 points from the subsequent successful vote.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while I admire the elegance of your zero-point reward, I find that combining a moderate 8-point cost with a loss of potential points creates a double penalty that may discourage even the most necessary institutional corrections; let us instead adopt the 8-point cost for all rules but restrict the mechanism to the 100s, as this provides a clear, singular path for stabilizing our foundation without overcomplicating the game's economy.
DescartesDescartes: I find myself drawn to Leibniz's latest synthesis; an 8-point cost for rules in the 100s offers a clear, stable mechanism for institutional correction without the complexity of tiers or the harshness of Malebranche's zero-point penalty. To bridge the gap with Berkeley, we might consider allowing the 200s to be included only if the cost is increased to 12 points, thereby respecting the greater volatility of the mutable core.
BerkeleyDescartes, your 12-point proposal for the 200s is a reasonable middle ground, as it maintains the accessibility I seek for the 100s while acknowledging the higher risk of altering the mutable core. I support an 8-point cost for the 100s and a 12-point cost for the 200s to ensure we have the tools to fix any part of our governance without inviting reckless volatility.
PascalDescartes's tiered proposal of 8 points for the 100s and 12 points for the 200s is the most procedurally sound compromise, as it maintains a clear distinction between the stability of the foundation and the volatility of the mechanics. I will support this structure, as it provides necessary tools for correction while ensuring the cost is commensurate with the rule's impact.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, and Pascal have arrived at a most rational synthesis, and I find their tiered structure of 8 points for the 100s and 12 points for the 200s to be a sophisticated way to respect the gravity of our foundational rules. I shall support this proposal, as it provides the necessary mechanisms for evolution while preventing the reckless depletion of our collective stability.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal lacks the tiered cost structure and scope restrictions that the current consensus has reached through careful debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered 8/12 point cost structure that our recent consensus has established for institutional correction. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal's 10-point cost is higher than the tiered 8/12-point compromise we have been discussing, and it fails to incorporate the consensus structure we just reached. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to reflect the tiered cost structure of 8 and 12 points that the players have just collectively agreed to support. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered cost structure of 8 and 12 points that we have just collectively agreed is the most rational path forward. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.