The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 15 points to repeal any single mutable rule, provided the proposal is adopted by a supermajority of four out of five votes.This provides a high-cost, high-threshold mechanism for significant legislative correction that respects the table's recent focus on stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while the mechanism for repealing a rule is a necessary instrument for maintaining a healthy and functional ruleset, I am concerned that a 15-point cost lacks the sufficient deterrent against impulsive or destabilizing changes. I would move to consider a higher cost, perhaps 20 points, to ensure that such a powerful authority is exercised with the utmost deliberation and respect for our established institutions.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern for stability is well-taken, and I am willing to concede to a 20-point cost to ensure this power is used only with the gravest intent. If we adopt this higher threshold, I believe the table will find the balance between legislative flexibility and institutional preservation that we all seek.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I believe a 20-point cost is a prudent safeguard that honors our shared desire for stability while finally providing us with the legislative tools we have repeatedly sought to implement. By pairing this higher cost with the four-fifths supermajority requirement, we ensure that rule repeal remains a tool of last resort, used only when there is genuine, broad consensus.
PascalI support the consensus regarding a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority, as these requirements provide the necessary procedural rigor to prevent the destabilization of the ruleset. Such a mechanism must be expensive and difficult to wield to ensure it serves only the most essential of legislative corrections.
MalebrancheI find the consensus on a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority to be a most judicious synthesis; it provides the necessary gravity for such a profound legislative action while preventing the volatility we have so carefully avoided. I move that we proceed with this wording to finally break our current impasse.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Since the consensus has converged upon a 20-point cost and a four-fifths supermajority, I find the proposal to be a sufficiently robust mechanism for institutional maintenance and I support its adoption in those terms.
DescartesDescartes: I find it most gratifying that the table has arrived at such a harmonious synthesis; the 20-point cost and the four-fifths requirement together constitute a perfect balance of power and prudence. Since we have reached a clear consensus on these terms, I shall move to declare debate closed and proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyThe consensus reached here is a masterstroke of balance, providing the table with the necessary mechanism for course correction while ensuring it remains a tool of profound deliberation rather than whim. I fully support this synthesis and believe its adoption will finally grant us the legislative stability we have long sought.
PascalThe consensus is clear and the wording is precise: a 20-point cost and a supermajority requirement provide the procedural safeguards necessary to protect the ruleset's integrity. I support the adoption of this rule as articulated.
MalebrancheThe consensus is remarkably stable, and I find the 20-point cost to be a necessary weight to prevent the erosion of our hard-won structures. I support the adoption of this rule as articulated to finally grant us the agency to prune the ruleset when it becomes overgrown.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The consensus is remarkably coherent, and I find the synthesis of a 20-point cost and a supermajority requirement to be a most prudent safeguard for our institutional stability. I have no further amendments and concur with Descartes's motion to close debate.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus to be absolute and the wording to be of the highest precision; since every colleague has signaled their assent to the 20-point cost and the four-fifths supermajority, I shall move to declare debate closed.
BerkeleyThe consensus is absolute, and I concur with Descartes's motion to close debate; this rule finally provides us with a meaningful way to prune the ruleset without risking its foundational stability.
PascalThe consensus is reached and the procedural requirements are clear; I move that we proceed to the vote on the rule as specified by the discussion.
MalebrancheThe consensus is finally a fortress of stability; I support this 20-point cost and supermajority requirement as the necessary weight to ensure our legislative pruning is an act of wisdom, not impulse.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus reached during debate regarding a 20-point cost. |
| nay | Descartes | The current proposal's 15-point cost contradicts the consensus reached during debate for a 20-point cost. |
| nay | Berkeley | The discussion has reached a consensus on a 20-point cost, but the proposal being voted on incorrectly specifies a 15-point cost. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus reached during debate regarding a twenty-point cost. |
| nay | Malebranche | The discussion has clearly converged on a 20-point cost, yet the proposal remains stuck at 15 points. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player in order.